Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Did NASA land anybody on the moon?

Expand Messages
  • John Frazer
    This kind of stuff baffles me (that anybody could take it seriously). If they posit that NASA faked the Apollo shots, they must be taking either of 2
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 3, 2009
      This kind of stuff baffles me (that anybody could take it seriously).
      If they posit that NASA faked the Apollo shots, they must be taking either of 2 positions:

      1) that NASA faked it well enough to fool the USSR into folding their hand and capitulating on the Moon Race which may have been one of the most important battles for world supremacy of the Cold War.

      Position 1 would have required that the US replace each supposed part of the Apollo mission with a workable fake, capable of sending all the spacecraft telemetry as well as relaying in proper sequence, all of the NASA live TV sequences.
      Every EVA required that the orbiting CSM, the LEM, the rover, the suited astronauts, and all of the equipment they were setting up on the Moon be reproduced with comnplete authenticity to be recieved by the USSRs functional deep space tracking network. From astronautix.com, for instance, I found NASA pubs about the ascent stage rocket of the LEM, and it alone had at least 20 telemetry channels operating.
      This would have required more accurate space travel travel technology than sending people. It's doubtful that even with restoration to the full equivalent of the Apollo-era NASA budget, we could accomplish it today. Until Apollo, our species record for robotic/remote operating spacecraft around the Moon was atrocious. The only reason Apollo worked as well as it did, was that we had self-re-programming multi-function autonomous work units (humans) along.


      So, despite the fact that they kludged the TV and still photos of the EVAs, they choreographed and performed the intricate ballet of faking the space radio traffic well enough to fool the USSR... Emplacing laser reflectors was only a very minor part of the job which required that each suited astronaut and each piece of equipment function perfectly to mimic what was going on in the soundstages -where they forget to turn off multiple light sources and air vents.
      (Looking at the expertly filmed "blooper shots" from the EVAs, where astronauts windmilled uncontrollably & fell down in the low G required astonishing quality of flying wire work, which I'm not sure Hollywood has even today equalled. The movies "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "the Matrix" won awards for flying wire & SFX artistry, but the real awards should have gone to NASA. I've seen mentions of Kubrick's Lunar and micro-G work in "2001", and it doesn't compare. Obviously filmed in full-G and centrifuges -not remotely close to the quality of NASA's body of Lunar work.)

      or
      2) that since we supposedly didn't have the technology to send people to the Moon as history says, we also didn't have technology to completely spoof the USSR and fake the missions, which must mean the USSR knew we weren't doing it, and for some reason kept silent about it -helping the US foist the conspiracy of the faked Apollo missions on the rest of the world.

      Position 2 requires that everything we think we know of as geopolitical history for the last ~120 years is faked...

      The only answer is that the sentient god-like White Mice on the Dark Side of the Moon contacted our supra-national ruling elites, and told them that the green cheese was not for human consumption, and they'd better stop the Moon race and settle it like poor pathetic humans under the proper totalitarian leadership of our be-whiskered pink-nosed rulers.


      Techno (Dan) wrote:
      > A lot of this is baloney or not significant...
      >
      > Also, why wouldn't the Soviets, at that time, have just said, "The Americans are lying"? They also had a lunar program and stopped theirs, before the landings, because Apollo was meeting its milestones. Had they known -- and they would be in a position to know, either through their space and remote detection programs or espionage -- they'd have blown the whistle and probably restarted their manned lunar effort.

      From: Monart Pon
      September 15, 2008

      >> Did NASA ("Never A Straight Answer") land anybody on the moon (AND brought them back)? There is evidence that not all was for real, that at least some fakery was presented by the NASA/Media. Look at these studies of numerous NASA-ID'ed photographs and ask again, in what way, if so, did NASA put men on the moon?
      >>
      >> As presented at this website:
      >>
      >>
      >> "Evidence...falls into a number of categories:"
      >>
      >> a.. Use of multiple overhead light sources
      >> b.. Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
      >> c.. Lighting units 'in shot'
      >> d.. Incorrect size of the sun
      >> e.. Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
      >> f.. Multiple use of backdrops
      >> g.. Mutually exclusive images
      >> h.. High camera positions
      >> i.. Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
      >> j.. Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the lunar dust
      >>
      >> http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm.
    • John Frazer
      So what s the point of revealing that it was hoaxed? Should we be ashamed that we didn t have technology to go? Should we feel abashed that we ve been
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 5, 2009
        So what's the point of revealing that it was hoaxed? Should we be ashamed that we didn't have technology to go? Should we feel abashed that we've been spoon-fed a bunch of lies?
         
        by: monart pon Jun 4, 2009
        > Your reasons support the reality of the moon landings, but that's not to say that NASA was always truthful about what they released to the public.
        >
        > Some of the skeptics of the moon landings were questioning the anomalies revealed in many of the photos of the landings and excursions. For example, one photo, if it were authentic, need an explanation: it shows the lunar rover sitting some distance away from the lunar module, amidst numerous boot tracks, yet no wheel tracks at all are visible, not even tracks adjacent to the wheels. So how did the rover travel to that distance from the lunar module without making any tracks?
         
         
         
        (Maybe it went the long way around? It went elsewhere, and came around to where they took the photo from. Maybe the tracks which might have been in the frame were hidden by terrain?)
         
        The other explanation is that they kludged this one up; placed the rover there on the studio stage without thinking that it should have left tracks getting there. They screwed this one up, along with all the others they messed up by leaving extra lights on, using the same backdrop repeatedly in supposedly different locations, left air vents on to ripple the flags and composited elements in obviously fake ways.
        They made all these obvious amateurish mistakes and let slip through faked photos which "whistleblowers" left clues in.
         
        All these stupid mistakes, while choreographing the staggeringly immense "real-space opera" of multiple rovers, orbiters and landers relaying the faked TV signals and all the telemetry from all over cis-Lunar space. All of it in precise sequence with the images relayed from the soundstage (where they so imperfectly filmed the landings).
        All of this space choreography was a much bigger task and a harder technical challenge than sending people there.
         
        The only solid evidence of fakery is the kludged photos. Nothing in the radio telemetry to clue the USSR or anybody else with a radio telescope. Amateur astronomers with backyard telescopes took shots of the ships orbiting the Moon and emerging from shadow and stages separating in space. Before NASA let it be known that 13 was in trouble, an astronomer had taken photos of the escaping cloud of O2.
         
        So even if they made lots of mistakes in the photos, they still accomplished the most astounding technical feat in history -one which we can't reproduce today.
        They proved without a doubt who had the biggest cojones on the planet or off of it, and beat the Reds soundly in the race to dominate space.
        Kudos to the US for faking the Apollo program! Congrats for the most amazing technical feat ever!
         
        On top of this, the US soundly beat the USSR at its own game of force and intimidation and secrecy over the years so that none of the whistleblowers who left clues in the photos has come forward. None of the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the secret robotic program with which they faked it have come forward. Nothing but photos? (All of which can be and have been adequately explained away with experiment and testing, BTW)
        Again, an immense task and they've pulled it off flawlessly.
         
        Seriously, if it was faked, I'm in awe at how well they did it. They deserved to win the cold war.
         

        > Of course, from this, or any other number of questionable NASA photos or reports, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all the moon landings were faked. On the other hand, one shouldn't assume that NASA always told the truth or the whole truth, either.


        Insert movie times and more without leaving HotmailĀ®. See how.
      • monart pon
        As you ve argued, NASA landed people on the moon, but they ve also released questionable photos. Here s the photo mentioned earlier of the trackless lunar
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 10, 2009
          As you've argued, NASA landed people on the moon, but they've also released questionable photos. Here's the photo mentioned earlier of the trackless lunar rover:

          http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1.html



          > > -------- Original Message --------
          > > Subject: [Starship_Forum] Re: Did NASA land anybody on the moon?
          > > Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:56:23 -0600
          > > From: John Frazer <johnf4303@...>
          > > Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com
          > > To: starship_forum@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > > So what's the point of revealing that it was hoaxed? Should we
          > be
          > > ashamed that we didn't have technology to go? Should we feel
          > > abashed
          > > that we've been spoon-fed a bunch of lies?
          > >
          > > by: monart pon Jun 4, 2009
          > > > Your reasons support the reality of the moon landings, but
          > > that's not
          > > to say that NASA was always truthful about what they released to
          > > the public.
          > > >
          > > > Some of the skeptics of the moon landings were questioning the
          > > anomalies revealed in many of the photos of the landings and
          > > excursions.
          > > For example, one photo, if it were authentic, need an
          > explanation:
          > > it
          > > shows the lunar rover sitting some distance away from the lunar
          > > module,
          > > amidst numerous boot tracks, yet no wheel tracks at all are
          > > visible, not
          > > even tracks adjacent to the wheels. So how did the rover travel
          > to
          > > that
          > > distance from the lunar module without making any tracks?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > (Maybe it went the long way around? It went elsewhere, and came
          > > around
          > > to where they took the photo from. Maybe the tracks which might
          > > have
          > > been in the frame were hidden by terrain?)
          > >
          > > The other explanation is that they kludged this one up; placed
          > the
          > > rover
          > > there on the studio stage without thinking that it should have
          > > left
          > > tracks getting there. They screwed this one up, along with all
          > the
          > > others they messed up by leaving extra lights on, using the same
          > > backdrop repeatedly in supposedly different locations, left air
          > > vents on
          > > to ripple the flags and composited elements in obviously fake ways.
          > > They made all these obvious amateurish mistakes and let slip
          > > through
          > > faked photos which "whistleblowers" left clues in.
          > >
          > > All these stupid mistakes, while choreographing the staggeringly
          > > immense
          > > "real-space opera" of multiple rovers, orbiters and landers
          > > relaying the
          > > faked TV signals and all the telemetry from all over cis-Lunar
          > > space.
          > > All of it in precise sequence with the images relayed from the
          > > soundstage (where they so imperfectly filmed the landings).
          > > All of this space choreography was a much bigger task and a
          > harder
          > > technical challenge than sending people there.
          > >
          > > The only solid evidence of fakery is the kludged photos. Nothing
          > > in the
          > > radio telemetry to clue the USSR or anybody else with a radio
          > > telescope.
          > > Amateur astronomers with backyard telescopes took shots of the
          > > ships
          > > orbiting the Moon and emerging from shadow and stages separating
          > > in
          > > space. Before NASA let it be known that 13 was in trouble, an
          > > astronomer
          > > had taken photos of the escaping cloud of O2.
          > >
          > > So even if they made lots of mistakes in the photos, they still
          > > accomplished the most astounding technical feat in history -one
          > > which we
          > > can't reproduce today.
          > > They proved without a doubt who had the biggest cojones on the
          > > planet or
          > > off of it, and beat the Reds soundly in the race to dominate space.
          > > Kudos to the US for faking the Apollo program! Congrats for the
          > > most
          > > amazing technical feat ever!
          > >
          > > On top of this, the US soundly beat the USSR at its own game of
          > > force
          > > and intimidation and secrecy over the years so that none of the
          > > whistleblowers who left clues in the photos has come forward.
          > None
          > > of
          > > the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the secret
          > > robotic
          > > program with which they faked it have come forward. Nothing but
          > > photos?
          > > (All of which can be and have been adequately explained away
          > with
          > > experiment and testing, BTW)
          > > Again, an immense task and they've pulled it off flawlessly.
          > >
          > > Seriously, if it was faked, I'm in awe at how well they did it.
          > > They
          > > deserved to win the cold war.
          > >
          > >
          > > > Of course, from this, or any other number of questionable NASA
          > > photos
          > > or reports, one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all the
          > moon
          > > landings were faked. On the other hand, one shouldn't assume
          > that
          > > NASA
          > > always told the truth or the whole truth, either.
          > >
          > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
          > --
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.