Jump to content

Fake Moon Landings


SovereigntyOfMan
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, bryan said:

A few years before the alleged moon landings the US Navy organised a descent to the deepest part of the ocean.

 

At 10:37 in the BBC documentary they say:


"Only a few officers and scientists knew about the risky mission, which was launched in January 1960 from the Western Pacific island of Guam."


"Guam in those days was kind of a backwater. It was just right for us because we were trying to do this project sort of out of sight, because we weren't too sure it was gonna work."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbahrgt0uzo

 

Was landing on the moon not a risky mission? Were they sure it would work?

 

(Embedding the video is 'forbidden')

 

Good find bryan .....

 

I remember Alex Jones talking about his chat with a Russian who worked at the top of their space program ...He said the people who went up were not the ones the public were told ....

 

Uri Gagarin was supposedly the first man in space . So with a big fan fare the press and TV show him getting in the rocket . But they just couldn't risk putting him up for real , if killed they couldn't cover it up ....

 

So a switch is made , some unknown goes up , and whatever happens Uri is filmed getting out of the capsule in the desert ...

 

GagarinHeadlines.jpg

 

Apparently the Russians did this with all of their launches , the people in the space race want to be heroes and not have the world see their disasters .... and the very few politicians that know ,  justify it to themselves by saying for national security they must appear to have rockets that work  , the same rockets are used for ICBM's.

 

This same guy told Alex the Russians in their space industry  all knew and had proof Apollo was faked .... Alex didn't believe him on this .. still clinging to the patriotic illusion it was real ... Or perhaps Alex didn't want to face the truth and alienate many of his listeners ...

 

Alex does know the SSP is real ... that the secret government has an off world empire with around a million personnel , fleets  of antigravity craft , bases on moon mars and elsewhere , he knows this is true from his many off record chats with Generals and insiders .... But Alex rarely talks about it , again , he may think it's too much for his audience to handle.

 

He did say this in a video , about 3 years ago 

 

 AJ..."What does NASA know that we haven't been told ?? We have a breakaway civilization here ..we have a whole system of 50 years advanced technologies , that's confirmed ...life extension you name it ...Trump is still trying to get access to all this (information) ..they're trying to keep it walled off from him, keep him in the dark that's why there's a governmental mutiny going on..."  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bryan said:

You've totally ignored the point.

 

No!

 

If the first mission failed they would have been ready to go again in short order.

 

As mentioned before the mission was to get Moon rocks back to Earth at any cost.

 

Tweaking the commies' nose was a bonus at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seconal said:

This may be a stupid question but I've always wondered, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon then who filmed him climbing down the ladder from the outside of the craft?

 

moon-landing_kindlephoto-1173557687.jpg.77c1dad78d8758ed9767b1f9300fba7f.jpg

 

That photo above  has been edited tidied up ...

 

Look at the sill shot in the video below ... this video comes from a NASA's own website ...You can see the line of the horizon through his body! Give me a friggin break!! ...lol  .... Nothing can explain that away ... they obviously faked this footage by layering ....

Sometimes it's so obvious.... NASA do it to show just how stupid people are , that they can't see what's in front of them ...just like on 9/11 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, serpentine said:

 

No!

 

If the first mission failed they would have been ready to go again in short order.

 

As mentioned before the mission was to get Moon rocks back to Earth at any cost.

 

Tweaking the commies' nose was a bonus at that time.

 

It would probably have been harder to actually fake all the Apollo missions (yeah, people forget there was more than one 😆) than to actually just do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oz93666 said:

 

That photo above  has been edited tidied up ...

 

Look at the sill shot in the video below ... this video comes from a NASA's own website ...You can see the line of the horizon through his body! Give me a friggin break!! ...lol  .... Nothing can explain that away ... they obviously faked this footage by layering ....

Sometimes it's so obvious.... NASA do it to show just how stupid people are , that they can't see what's in front of them ...just like on 9/11 

 

 

"Anyone watching the original broadcast, on either July 20, 1969, or today, knows that it looks very fuzzy. Circumstances were working against NASA from the start. The distance the signal needed to travel, the conversions and retransmissions required to reach televisions in homes, meant a reduction in the quality of the picture, resulting in reduced resolution and a mismatch in the signal layers. That is why sometimes the astronauts appear more like translucent ghosts than people."

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/how-we-saw-armstrongs-first-steps

 

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11_hdpage.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, oz93666 said:

 

That photo above  has been edited tidied up ...

 

Look at the sill shot in the video below ... this video comes from a NASA's own website ...You can see the line of the horizon through his body! Give me a friggin break!! ...lol  .... Nothing can explain that away ... they obviously faked this footage by layering ....

Sometimes it's so obvious.... NASA do it to show just how stupid people are , that they can't see what's in front of them ...just like on 9/11 

 

 

Answer: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-astronauts-sometimes-appear-transparent-in-video-footage-of-the-moon-landings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DarianF said:

from the above link ....

 

"This is a camera artifact called image lag, typical of certain television pickup tubes of the era, including the Vidicon tube used in the Apollo TV Camera.

This type of camera tube projects a scene onto a photoconductive target, creating a charge-density pattern which is then scanned to create the electric TV signal. The electrical charge remains present on the target until it is re-scanned or the charge dissipates. The image lag causes a characteristic smear or tail following fast-moving objects in a scene, and prolonged exposure of a bright stationary object results in a slow decaying after .."

 

Absolute rubbish , as is said this effect occurs with fast moving objects something rushing across the field of view , the camera has a lag due to phosphorescents much less than a second .... the "astronaut" is hardly moving 

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarianF said:

 

"how you can see all landing sites??" well that's just it , you can't see them ...

 

to quote from your first link ...

 

"As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits...."

 

So the pictures they give in your link are from NASA , from a lunar orbiter .... (You can trust NASA ..lol) 

 

I'm board with this now so this is my last post on this thread , it has all been gone over on the old DIforum in minute detail ...(all now lost )

 

I've been examining the evidence for 22years with an open mind , it's my conclusion Apollo was faked . But NASA will ALWAYS have a smart answer to any evidence indicating it was faked . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one last post .....

 

The final word on any issue must rest with Karl Mollison , he is the best source for truth we have available ...

 

He channeled Stanley Kubric , and the second question asked was about Apollo ....

 

Kubric confirms it was faked , filmed in a studio ...  

 

https://video.get-wisdom.com/watch_video.php?v=22GH2AA9KG48

 

You have to become a member of getwisdom to see video , but no charge 

1576153306b2653-original-6-stanley-kubri

 

 

Questions for Light Being Stanley Kubrick 05June2018

1)  Why did you become an earthbound spirit?

2)  Was the video of your confession regarding the Apollo moon landing a fake?  Were the Apollo moon landings faked?  All of them or some of them? Were you involved?

3)  Can you tell us about your esoteric resources that were used in your films? Which one of your films portrays the full force of your esoteric knowledge?

4)  What was your understanding of evil and did you feel that you understood its reason and cause?

5)  In what way, if any, did your movie A Clockwork Orange serve the Light? Could it be viewed as a warning?

6)  Did you have any lost soul spirit attachments in your incarnation and can you tell us about this as it may have influenced your art?

7)  Can you explain your interest and affinity for Napoleon and the Final Solution, two subjects where you may have had some intentions to make a film for each?

8)  Would it be realistic to view the AI movie that you made with Steven Spielberg, starring Haley Joel Osment as an android, masquerading as a young boy, as a mind programming tool to soften up the world’s human population to the idea of machine love being equitable to Divine Love?  Or is this overreaching? 

9)  Was your death due to natural causes? 

10)  What do you think about the investment in the human free will experiment and its meaning going forward if humans are successful in this alleged 9 year period of transition?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oz93666 said:

Just one last post .....

 

The final word on any issue must rest with Karl Mollison , he is the best source for truth we have available ...

 

He channeled Stanley Kubric , and the second question asked was about Apollo ....

 

Kubric confirms it was faked , filmed in a studio ...  

 

https://video.get-wisdom.com/watch_video.php?v=22GH2AA9KG48

 

You have to become a member of getwisdom to see video , but no charge 

1576153306b2653-original-6-stanley-kubri

 

 

Questions for Light Being Stanley Kubrick 05June2018

1)  Why did you become an earthbound spirit?

2)  Was the video of your confession regarding the Apollo moon landing a fake?  Were the Apollo moon landings faked?  All of them or some of them? Were you involved?

3)  Can you tell us about your esoteric resources that were used in your films? Which one of your films portrays the full force of your esoteric knowledge?

4)  What was your understanding of evil and did you feel that you understood its reason and cause?

5)  In what way, if any, did your movie A Clockwork Orange serve the Light? Could it be viewed as a warning?

6)  Did you have any lost soul spirit attachments in your incarnation and can you tell us about this as it may have influenced your art?

7)  Can you explain your interest and affinity for Napoleon and the Final Solution, two subjects where you may have had some intentions to make a film for each?

8)  Would it be realistic to view the AI movie that you made with Steven Spielberg, starring Haley Joel Osment as an android, masquerading as a young boy, as a mind programming tool to soften up the world’s human population to the idea of machine love being equitable to Divine Love?  Or is this overreaching? 

9)  Was your death due to natural causes? 

10)  What do you think about the investment in the human free will experiment and its meaning going forward if humans are successful in this alleged 9 year period of transition?

 

Hey Stan, did you hear, R. Lee Ermey? Sucks arse mate.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 6:07 AM, oz93666 said:

Just one last post .....

 

The final word on any issue must rest with Karl Mollison , he is the best source for truth we have available ...

 

He channeled Stanley Kubric , and the second question asked was about Apollo ....

 

Kubric confirms it was faked , filmed in a studio ...  

 

https://video.get-wisdom.com/watch_video.php?v=22GH2AA9KG48

 

You have to become a member of getwisdom to see video , but no charge 

 

 

I am very amused that you discount proven landings in favouring a secret that only internet snake-oil salesman 'know about'. Your post is a load of honk. Kubrick was never involved in this and the whole joke of him was begun on April Fool's - say no more.

 

Your posts about ghosting on the videos is seen on the full EVA, here is good page that addresses on other crazy claim from fictional woman:

http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

 

catadioptric
Referring to an optical system which uses both reflection (mirrors) and refraction (lenses). This also describes the unwanted effect of lens elements reflecting images inside a compound camera lens. Undesirable catadioptric effects include ghosting and lens flares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how many young and sane people find reasons to believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories. The whole world considers it one of the greatest achievements of humanity, and there are still individuals who state that it's fake at every opportunity. I dunno what's wrong with you, guys. There are so many facts that prove the Apollo mission landed on Moon, but you don't believe it. Btw, it sounds rather offensive for me as a person who studies space and aerospace engineering. How can you believe these arguments? Don't they seem foolish to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conspiracy Theories definitely relate to unhealthy psychological needs of certain people. However, exploiting and shaming such people is a powerful tool in discrediting certain theories as well as cementing belief in the mainstream.

 

If one is to think for oneself being entertain thoughts without accepting them, then one must be discerning in all matters, be they conspiracy or mainstream, misinformation or disinformation, flat out lies or absolute truth, self discovered or learned from another.I

 

It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thoughts without accepting it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2021 at 3:14 AM, Jake156 said:

It's amazing how many young and sane people find reasons to believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories. The whole world considers it one of the greatest achievements of humanity, and there are still individuals who state that it's fake at every opportunity. I dunno what's wrong with you, guys. There are so many facts that prove the Apollo mission landed on Moon, but you don't believe it. Btw, it sounds rather offensive for me as a person who studies space and aerospace engineering. How can you believe these arguments? Don't they seem foolish to you?

 

If someone has a specific question, answer it for them. If you give them a reasonable answer and they refuse to listen, then just ignore them. I've never seen an Apollo hoax claim that hasn't been debunked. So don't stress about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

 

Does this include the alleged photographs of Hadley Rille?

 

Hadley Rille (Apollo 15) - YouTube

 

I suspect you are watching another youtube video in the never stopping conveyor of rubbish.   Pictures taken on the Moon have nothing to tell viewers the distance to things in the image. Like trees and atmosphere haze. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scale in that video is questionable. It does not equate to accepted dimensions. Even given the very poor resolution it's easy to pick out rocks on the opposite side which would appear to be around 100-200m away at most. I will find NASA photos that indicate the small scale.

 

"Rima Hadley typically ranges in depth between 600 and 900 feet (180 and 270 m), but is approximately 1,200 feet (370 m) deep at the Apollo 15 landing site. The feature has a cumulative length of about 80 miles (130 km) and an average width of about 0.75 miles (1.21 km)."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you couldn't see Stars in space because the sun is too bright. Only when Earths night time caused by the Sun behind the Earth can we see stars in the blind spot.

 

Is that right? Because the Suns lighting the Moons surface and there are visible Stars.

 

Also would the Americans fail to have a backup plan and would they admit they failed or worse succeeded and found some weird shit.

Edited by Seconal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

The scale in that video is questionable. It does not equate to accepted dimensions. Even given the very poor resolution it's easy to pick out rocks on the opposite side which would appear to be around 100-200m away at most. I will find NASA photos that indicate the small scale.

 

"Rima Hadley typically ranges in depth between 600 and 900 feet (180 and 270 m), but is approximately 1,200 feet (370 m) deep at the Apollo 15 landing site. The feature has a cumulative length of about 80 miles (130 km) and an average width of about 0.75 miles (1.21 km)."

 

 

 

I have made the incorrect part of your quote in bold type. The problem as I informed you is that long distance is not obvious without other objects or atmosphere. 

 

House Rock - Apollo 16 - YouTube

 

"To some of the people who think the moon landing was faked, this clip is hard to explain. With no atmosphere, distances are hard to judge, which is why the background turns out to be much farther away then you think."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

And of equal importance, the LRO shows the lunar Appenines as sharp, rugged and craggy. Compare with the usual NASA backgrounds which are smooth and rounded, exactly like model backdrops.

 

 

Montes_Apenninus_(LRO).jpg

337383main_pg101_AS15-87-11835_full.jpg

 

Very odd, you are using a picture from orbit of Apollo to say that Apollo at surface is wrong!

 

This area was mapped on Selene from Japan, topographic:

 

263246main_landing_split_655.jpg

 

Matches exactly to surface picture from Apollo. If you zoom close and locally, the mountains are not sharp and jagged. Use Google Moon - works great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seconal said:

I thought you couldn't see Stars in space because the sun is too bright. Only when Earths night time caused by the Sun behind the Earth can we see stars in the blind spot.

 

Is that right? Because the Suns lighting the Moons surface and there are visible Stars.

 

Also would the Americans fail to have a backup plan and would they admit they failed or worse succeeded and found some weird shit.

 

No, this is noise from either charged particle hitting film or film development artefacts. Not stars. Backup plan is glorious failure and try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pre-Raphaelite said:

Hardly 1200 feet deep or 3/4 mile wide.

Apollo_15_2.jpg

 

 

I ask you what visual cues are you using for this judgement. No air and pollution or heat hazes, or dust in atmosphere.

 

Visual cue and fuzzy distance helps:

eao87z.jpg

 

 

Please observe this picture below and imagine no clues of trees and snow lumps at the front. Look at clear mountain in the arctic and tell me you don't see it as very near without such clues:

 

cIkg&pid=ImgRaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...