We Never Went to the Moon

Here's some stuff that convinced me we never went to the moon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76q...x=0&playnext=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...26565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...69088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Here it is doubled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09579385499503
Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...16594425246748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://es.youtube.com/results?search...rch_type=&aq=f

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-w...rt-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/norther...r.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot....inking_24.html
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/20...echniques.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".
Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15730495966561

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...4&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...1053&hl=apollo

The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldogleb...oooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInf...Challenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...9659&hl=apollo
http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/

These two are important.
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
---------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
---------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
(23 parts)

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChange...=48603&t=51606

Oh, for jeeze... *face-palm*
Please tell me your scientific qualifications and what you understand about the basic principles of photography. Because very basic high-school level science and beginner principles of photography disprove every single conspiracy theory in existance. I did a project on this for my Grade Eleven physics class, and did a lot of research, which convinced me completely that it was not a hoax. Fanatical, pseudo physics and the political hypotheses of whistle-blower believers' do not convince me otherwise. 90% of the 'evidence' provided by discrepancies between stories of astronauts, scientists and people involved is taken seriously out of context.

I also believe, quite frankly, that it would be impossible to co-ordinate the lies of the large number of people it would have been necessary to involve.

People will always see what they WANT to see, however, so there is no swaying either side of opinion.

YES, I DO want to believe that my childhood ambitions of being an astronaut were not in vain, YES, I DO want to believe that we are capable of attaining something cosmic and fantastic and beautiful, delving far into the realms of 'impossible' science, and I DO want to believe that man has stood on the moon and planted a flag, even though I am not American, nor even patriotic of my own country...

Some of this evidence of fakery is so clear that it doesn't take a degree to see it.

Let's hear your analysis of this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76q...x=0&playnext=1

I'm not even going to bother dignifying this with a proper response. It wouldn't be forum appropriate, as I'd be extremely frusterated and probably cursing. I apologize. But I think you're completely wrong. Each to their own, though. Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

I'm not even going to bother dignifying this with a proper response. It wouldn't be forum appropriate, as I'd be extremely frusterated and probably cursing. I apologize. But I think you're completely wrong. Each to their own, though. Have a nice day.

---

Are you familiar with these two sites?

http://www.bautforum.com/

http://www.clavius.org/
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi
(Clavius forum)

Both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites are government damage-control sites. All the regular pro-Apollo posters on those sites know the moon missions were faked.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222

http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/20...echniques.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a lot of people who make false and idiotic claims about Apollo pictures. They thus provide debunkers with much needed food.
Without this debunker food, they would have to address the real issues, something which they would rather avoid. These issues include:
Lack of star pictures,
Missing technical data,
Reliability issues.
But these are "soft" issues, that is, issues involving expected human behavior. In a topic as controversial as the Apollo program, only hard technical arguments have sufficient convincing power. Here are such issues:
Radiation,
Missing landing blast crater,
Missing sound,
Instantaneous craft kinematics.
Contrary to what a quick glance might lead you to believe, debunker sites such as Clavius do not properly address those issues. When they face debunker food or legitimate errors on the part of hoax theorists, they make well-reasoned arguments and show all their technical knowledge in a pedagogical manner.
Yet, strangely, on those above issues, their responses are not in line with what their competence as displayed in other answers might lead us to expect. They lack technical details and are instead full of handwaving, appeals to authority and fallacious reasoning, such as relying on NASA-provided measured radiation doses to prove that the passage thru the belts was not dangerous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone tries to post something that the regular pro-Apollo posters at Bad Astronomy can't handle, the post won't appear. A note will appear that says "This post must be approved by moderators before it can appear" and then the post will never appear.

Anyway, before they started using that tactic to keep control over the direction debates take, I got banned there.

I was posting there under the name "David C". Look at the last post of this page on which the moderator closed the thread.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...tml#post893592
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

Here's the post with the questions asked of me.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...tml#post891474

Here's where I answered them.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...tml#post892498

The moderator closed the thread giving the reason that I hadn't answered the questions when I had in fact answered them so I started another thread on the subject.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...nside-job.html

They closed that thread before a healthy discussion could even get started. I started another thread to complain about it.
http://www.bautforum.com/forum-intro...w-tactics.html

That's what got me banned there. Shortly after that they decided to limit discussion in the conspiracy theory section to space and astronomy.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...astronomy.html

Evidently they couldn't try to discrediting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without looking silly so they decided to just discontinue talking about it.

Here's another case where the moderator closed a thread because his people couldn't discredit the theory without looking silly.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...smuggling.html

I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth.

I got banned for 30 days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that Apollo was a hoax.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ead=971&page=1
(see reply 33)

I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/in...ay&thread=1575

As you can see by reading the thread, they closed it because they couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly.

There are forums on which the moderators use their power to control the direction debates take and Clavius and Bad Astronomy are prime examples. This kind of control is only necessary when a lie is being defended as when there is free debate, a false argument will fall by its own lack of merit and no control over what the other side is allowed to say is necessary.

Here's something else that's interesting.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

The official US version of the Chinese space walk is that it was real when it was obviously faked in a water tank.

Look at the piece of paper that comes out of the hatch in this clip from the Chinese space walk.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
(00:12 time mark)

The piece of paper comes up, hits the side of the hatch, stops, and then starts moving again. This is inconsistent with zero-G in a vacuum and consistent with water current.

The fact that NASA's position is that this footage was taken in space totally destroys it's credibility.

Anyway, you should examine all the evidence and rethink your position. I know it's not easy for a person to admit he or she's been believing a lie all his or her life so I can understand how you feel. Take a look at this.

http://www.learningandteaching.info/...dissonance.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".


Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd believed they went to the moon until the arrival of the internet and I finally saw the evidence of fakery. I didn't feel silly at all though because I believed it simply because I'd never investigated the topic. As soon as I saw the evidence, I simply modified my opinion. It was easy really. Don't feel bad; if you simply hadn't ever seen the evidence before, there's no reason to feel silly.

I have to agree with you. Today we do have the technology to fake the moon landing in 1969. Of course that means that we also faked the cold war because certainly the Soviet Union and the Chinese would not have let the US get away with it. Oh, by the way what were our credentials that you were asked about by an earlier poster other that you have an internet connection?

Quote:

---

Of course that means that we also faked the cold war because certainly the Soviet Union and the Chinese would not have let the US get away with it.

---

Watch this video series about the cold war.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...+cold+war&aq=f

Also, read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war. It's in his book "Deterring Domocracy".
http://www.amazon.com/Deterring-Demo...5930194&sr=1-1

Quote:

---

Oh, by the way what were our credentials that you were asked about by an earlier poster other that you have an internet connection?

---

I have three years of college but I didn't graduate.

Cosmo you are a space alien. :alien::alien::alien:

I've never laughed so hard......:lol:

Oops gotta go...Just glimpsed Bigfoot and Nessie outside ......:lol:

I always believe what I see on youtube also.......:lol::alien::lol:and as for the net...
well.....LOL

In a (very slight and metaphoric) way, you're right, mate.

We can't live on the Moon, therefore, we never made it to be ours. When there's a colony, there, I'll say "mankind's gone to the Moon".


Lq#

I'm not particularly interested in the moon or other planets within or beyond our solar system as I find our own holds more than enough interest for me already.
I don't know whether man has walked on the moon or not but there certainly seems to be an increasing number of people posing questions; some of which don't appear to have adequate answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I'm not particularly interested in the moon or other planets within or beyond our solar system as I find our own holds more than enough interest for me already.
I don't know whether man has walked on the moon or not but there certainly seems to be an increasing number of people posing questions; some of which don't appear to have adequate answers.

---

I'm not interested in planets beyond the Solar system either. But I love to think about the colonization! :) I believe it might give a relief to earth, as well as a new sense of adventure to men, in a .. 'n already too small planet.

(Not to say that we may have reached a moment in which our communications technology might allow us to seriously think about it ...)

[I like to write what I call "futuristic". I don't call it science fiction, because I run from "fiction", I mean, I don't have in my writings 1. light-speed/warp/jump, 2. alien contact, 3. artificial gravity different than epicentrical (?)*, 4. laser weaponry;

it may sound boring, but I try to keep the thing "real", true. This was Jules Verne's legacy, in a way: to think about ~possible~ things, which inspires mankind to give it a try ... (long-distances underwater vehicle (possibly not HIS idea, but his literature, no doubt ...), travelling to the Moon using rockets ...)

I find it very interesting that series (I don't know if it still goes, 'cause we don't have cable tv anylonger ...), "Battlestar Gallactica", because of the space simulation and effect they created ... (They had two problems as "sci-fi": false artificial gravity, and "jump" in space (...).) Their space effect for sound of ships was very interesting, because they managed to put -- in television! -- an idea of space without sound in the vacuum! They used effects that gave idea of sound inside the ships, machinery sounds, internal explosions and communication noise. That was genious!, brilliantly executed! :) ...

Anyway, therefore, my futuristics are basically about "history" of the Solar system colonization ... I'll try to begin translate it, as soon as I publish it all, at the blog.


*centrífuga, in Portuguese]


Lq#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by librarius_qui

I'm not interested in planets beyond the Solar system either. But I love to think about the colonization! I believe it might give a relief to earth, as well as a new sense of adventure to men, in a .. 'n already too small planet.

---

and after we've destroyed all the other planets in the galaxy, where do we go from there? especially without warp dive... How's about conserving the one planet we have?
but I agree with you on the science fiction bit. I like that kind of story.

cosmo, who are you? a guest who read this thread and registered just to bring up that conspiracy theory again?

Oh deary, deary me...

Just face it - we landed on the moon. If the US government spent all that money on merely faking, I'd be really brassed off if I were American.

If it was a hoax, then would the government do such a sloppy job as to make it so apparently obvious? Photoshopping materials works both ways, you know? You can make something real look fake.

The question will become largely academic once we get to the moon again and actually see the evidence there on the surface.

I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.

P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.