Re: NEW Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax.

[wipemysmile]

Thats not how it was done. They pinned up a transparent picture. The earth is actually on the other side of the craft. You can see it as the camera pans to the windows on the opposite side.

[stud6niner]

you fool. They are not using the real earth for the fake shots. They are using a slide of the earth in plastic attached to the window, and then reflecting light to that.

[CHSarahBs]

@stud6niner And how could the Earth disappear behind the window frame?

[xxxXW4NT3DXxxx]

wow.

[xxxXW4NT3DXxxx]

Too bad you werent on the apollo spacecraft because then we would know the true answer considering how awful you are at special effects.

[Daddyo930]

What a moron. Your video only proves that you can manipulate anything giving more credence to the hoax theory. Thanks for helping out the truth movement buddy in your own sophomoric way.

[CHSarahBs]

@Daddyo930 What does it help? The video clearly shows that it is not possible to fake the film footage of Earth from halfway to Moon with footage from LEO. Sibrels idea has been debunked. It is that easy.

[Daddyo930]

@CHSarahBs Ever heard of photoshop? Avid Media Composer? Corel Draw? Anything like that? You can manipulate anything and I don't care whether it's a video or a picture. Now act like you know something.

[CHSarahBs]

@Daddyo930 You act like you know nothing. Photoshop, Media Composer, Corel Draw in 1969? Are you really that naive?

[Daddyo930]

@CHSarahBs Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect.

[spongiebungie]

pretty...

[Jackkennedy68]

You know you are watching an incredibly stupid video when you are HOPING to get Rick Rolled.

[THREESIXNINE100]

some people will prostitutes themselves for anything ....

[datzfast]

a stencil is not a transparency, this is a fine example of the gross misrepresentation

so characteristic of NASA. i have never herd anyone claim a stencil of the earth could be used to fake a planet. how fucking absurd is that? Again, this video is just another deception. you should be ashamed of yourself for the appalling behavior.

[Simboiss]

A few elements to consider.

1) Video quality was lower at the time, so it's more blurry and leave more to interpretation.

2) The videos made to fake the distant Earth were shot with a camera held by an astronaut, so it was shaky.

3) They used a stencil in front of the window to give the Earth a irregular oval shape.

4) The video where we see the astronaut fake the shots goes on after they put on the lights in the shuttle, and at this point we can see that Earth is near and fills the window.

[LunarTuner]

@Simboiss, 1) The blurry video shows the phase of the earth and the weather patterns perfectly match the much more clear Hasselblad 70mm images also shot at the same time.

2) The fact that the camera shakes is even MORE evident that human hands were over 130,000 miles from earth.

3) A stensil in front of the window would show land masses, oceans and clouds wizzing by at 17,000 mph!

4) Uh, no, we DON'T see the Earth is near. We see light reflected of the attached Lunar Module.

[fanbutton]

@LunarTuner there is a big difference between a stensil and a transparency. And where was all this reflected light off of the lunar module when they said they were viewing the earth from over a 100,000 miles out? Whether it was reflected light or not, you just put your foot in your own dumb mouth. When the transparency was taken away, all the light ushered in.

[LunarTuner]

@fanbutton, my comment was in response to Simboiss' statement, "They used a stencil". It is HIS opinion that a stencil was used. The transparency theory is even dumber since we see several Apollo 11 shots showing the distant earth MOVING in the window. How does a transparency move?

View this from 1:57 to about 3:08

watch?v=WOJ2FiCn-L0&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[kevinstuartfr0st]

i know what shall we spray SLR camers silver to protect it from EXTREAM HEAT AND EXTREAM COLD AND RADIATION ON THE MOON lol that is on NASA own web page

[kevinstuartfr0st]

LOL what a load of rubbish,the earth in NASA film was only showing 30%of earth NOT LESS THAN 5% lol lol

[1NessQuick1]

moon landings were all faked, you know it, i know it, everyone knows it.

[LunarTuner]

@1NessQuick1, what a brilliant argument! "you know it, I know it, everyone knows it." It reminds me of the Barney song, "I love you, you love me..." Did you not even watch the video? Demonstrate some capacity for critical thinking, please, before condemning the life work of 400,000 people and mankind's greatest scientific achievement.

[JustSayNo2Guns]

Run your camera in slow motion. Problem solved. Earth slows down. duh

[LunarTuner]

@JustSayNo2Guns, how does one put a live broadcast is slow motion? And slow motion is still "motion"! If the Apollo crew used this port-hole technique, not only would there always be motion shown, but--for crying out loud--how could we see the entire pacific coastline from Alaska to the tip of Chile? This theory is mentally unsound in every respect!

[Simboiss]

@LunarTuner Most videos were not shown live. And the videos that were allegedly "live" were not exactly live. They were rebroadcast.

[kennyeret]

hahaha...FAIL!!!!

[only1too]

this is what happens when you try things at home that only professional (like nasa astro-nots) should attempt.

way ta go dufus..ya single handedly knocked the moon hoax movement back to square one..almost got me believing it DID happen as they said...

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- Now there's nothing wrong with not knowing. The thing you did wrong was to go screaming your head off saying that you DO know all about geosynchronous orbit when you hadn't even started to have a clue about how it works.

Next time someone comes along who just might possibly know more than you do about physics and tells you that you are wrong about something, you might consider going and looking up the subject and seeing if there's something you missed.

Just a suggestion.

[tpsossff]

@nesokretep

So they only went to a geo-sync orbit and the Russians and thousands of staff at the various tracking stations around the world never noticed?

How was that done then?

[nesokretep]

@tpsossff -- The reason I was explaining geosynchronous orbit to that guy was he was saying they were in a "geosynchronous low earth orbit." He thought a ship could be in geosynchronous orbit at only a couple hundred miles altitude, which is, of course, impossible.

A geosynchronous orbit needs to be at an altitude of about 22,236 miles. And if you go that high, you've already gone through the lower Van Allen belt and you might as well go to the moon.

[tpsossff]

@nesokretep

And they did it six times over three years?

[nesokretep]

@tpsossff -- Well, actually, they did it nine times (including two test flights and one "successful failure" as they call Apollo 13) over about four years but they only landed six times.

.

Pretty cool. Too bad our government wastes so much of our resources on other things.

[tpsossff]

@nesokretep

I think it is heartbreaking when I think of the missed oportunities. After the Apollo 11 crew got home NASA admitted that that mission cost $200 million. The cold war at that time had cost the US $15,000 billion. Mind boggling sums in 1969.

Mars is still 30 years away at best, but sadly I do not beleive man will ever get there ... by then artificial intelligence will be a reality and everything we know and beleive will change forever...... I fear not for the best.

[nesokretep]

@tpsossff -- They say a new, longer-term mission to the moon would cost something like $300 billion. But we've already wasted over a trillion on stupid wars that, even if we were going to do them, we should have been in and out of long ago.

And more trillions on "bail-outs" of banks that we should have allowed to fail so that more efficient businesses could step in and take their place.

For less than 10% of that, look where we could be.

And the world wouldn't even be hating us for it.

[captaindrywall]

you slow down the film if its moving to fast.

[cadu1995]

That ws the DUMBEST video i have ever seen-SHEER STUPIDITY.proving nothing

[MrHmmm1]

For one your not using the same technique you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your not in space!!!! Some shitty cut and paste computer effect onto footage you didnt shoot. They faked it real time!!! Tired of people refusing the norm. Only idiots believe everything their told. They lied to you mate. Get over it.

[sssssjjjj1]

All the moonrocks donated to diff museums have recently discovered that they were nothing but petrified wood. This is fact. That used to be the thing gov shills like history channel, pop mechanics whose editor is Michael chertoffs brother, would say, "How do you explain the moonrocks? Well, how I explain them now, is that they are just old old old wood from northern Cali. hahahhaha Suckerrrr!

[nesokretep]

@sssssjjjj1 -- Either you lie or else someone has lied to you.

No, all the moon rocks have most definitely NOT been discovered to have been petrified wood. There was ONE rock which was NOT given by NASA but by a politician which was discovered to be petrified wood.

Hundreds of samples of moon rocks have been examined and studied by scientists all over the world. The are real.

[nitojo7]

That correct the clounds and land scape is never the same, because the earths movements. But this also shows that the NASA picture of Earth on the moon looks fake with it frozen moventless earth.

[Sheppy99]

What I find funny is how Donald Rumsfeld was one of the first people to come up with the idea to fake the moon landings to show superiority over Russia and we're to believe that his evil genius had nothing to do with concocting 9/11? These guys will lie about anything if they think the end goal will benefit their country. Whatever means necessary.

[MitellProductions]

SLOW DOWN THE FOOTAGE THEN

[redgrayz]

@MitellProductions HOW ABOUT IT WOULD STILL LOKK FAKE COZ THERE WOULD BE CLOUDS THE SIZE OF THE EARTH LOLOLOL

[fanbutton]

When you switched from the blue earth to the black background, you gave your bullchit away. Anyone pausing and starting the video at that point can plainly see that the images in the highlighted dots are not the same. Nice try. Now go and get a life.

[fanbutton]

So nice of you to zoom in on an area the size of a pin prick and then blow it up. The chit was faked...get over it.

No one has ever been to the moon and back.

[dopje31857]

This little video kills some more hoaxtards by the way. But it's no use, these silly people will always find a 'thread' to save their ridiculous theories. About Bigfoot, 9-11, JFK, Moonlandings, whatever.

Adolescent amoebes. That's what they are.

[dopje31857]

Absolute crap fanbutt.

There are many footages showing your little fabric go DOWN when the astronaut is going UP.

And to destroy your stupid little theory even more: there are many footages showing a PLSS moving sidewards because of the walking astronaut. A wire would prevent such.

[fanbutton]

Notice how the fabric, on the top front of the backpacks (not necessarily where the "antenna" is), is pulled upwards, indicating tension and wires usage. You will notice that the fabric is only yanked upwards when the asstronots are "leaping", "jumping", "hopping", "traversing", and getting up off of the "Moon"...

[thehawker2]

THis is lame it looks like a black mate over the earth, not even close to convincing, the apollo mission was very convincing though, but this is because THEY WENT TO THE FUCKING MOON!!!!

[andrewh23]

Look up geosynchronous orbit genius. The dictionary is that dusty book that you never open on your shelf over there. Yep, that's it. You never learned to read? oh.

[ckikilwai]

Geosynchronous orbit is outside the van Allen belts. So why don't go to the moon if you are already past those belts?

[only1too]

@ckikilwai

you're an idiot.

geosynchronous orbit does NOT require being outside the van allen belt; it means you travel in syncronous movement with the rotation of the earth- no matter how close or far away. back to the basement turning you dink orange eating cheezies & pulling your pud, ya tosser..my God! what are they teaching kids in belgium these days besides how to be particularly unable to comprehend relatively simple terms....

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- Do you even know what an "orbit" is?

Your statement about geosynchronous orbit is the most blatantly ignorant thing I have read in a long time.

Yes -- being in geosynchronous orbit most definitely DOES require one to be outside of the Van Allen belt (at least the inner belt anyway -- there are two belts).

Geosynchronous orbit can only occur at one very specific altitude.

[only1too]

@nesokretep

"A geosynchronous orbit may be defined as one with an orbital period (the time needed to orbit once around the Earth) that matches the rotation rate of the Earth."

has NOTHING to do with distance from earth or the belts but the speed required to keep IN SYNC with a position on earth.

do you need that written in crayon, maybe your own pooh.but be sure to wear your hockey helmet like yo sister/momma tol' ya so, boy.

when you speak of the blatantly ignorant,look into a mirror kid...

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- So you've found someplace to look up a one-line definition of what the term "geosynchronous orbit" means. Good for you.

Now for your NEXT assignment, you can go and look up and understand what that MEANS.

Please find the standard formula for orbital velocity. It will contain the the mass of the body being orbited, the radius of the orbit and the universal gravitational constant.  Study and understand those as well as WHY an object stays in orbit.

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- After you understand how it is possible for an object to stay in orbit at all and after you understand what defines the speed required to keep it in orbit, then you will understand that there is only ONE altitude at which it is possible for an obect's orbital velocity to match the rotation of the earth.

Every person or company which has considered putting an object into geosynchronous orbit knows this. And every high school kid who has taken a physics class can compute it.

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- ALL objects in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth are at an altitude of 22,236 miles.

[only1too]

@nesokretep

just to shatter any illusion of intelligence on your part:

howstuffworks . com/question378.htm;

"...to get up above the atmosphere & into the vacuum of space to orbit for any length of time. 200 miles (320 km) up is about the minimum to avoid atmospheric interference. The Hubble space telescope orbits at an altitude of 380 miles (600 km) or so"

22,236 miles??proof retards can learn to write; but only like imbeciles.guess who failed physics.back to the ouija board for you...

[nesokretep]

@only1too -- You failed physics? Yeah. I guess that's what you meant to say. Please read your link again. Does it mention anywhere in it anything about geosynchronous orbit?

No. It doesn't.

Try again.

Maybe here: en. wikipedia. org / wiki / Geosynchronous_orbit

or here: 3w. daviddarling. info/encyclopedia/G/geosynchro­nous_orbit. html

or here: 3w. sciencedaily. com/articles/g/geosynchronous_­orbit. htm

[only1too]

@ckikilwai

"A geosynchronous orbit may be defined as one with an orbital period (the time needed to orbit once around the Earth) that matches the rotation rate of the Earth."

it has NOTHING to do with distance from earth but the speed required to keep IN SYNC with a position on earth. see geostationary.

[Sozlled]

@ckikilwai Haha, owned.

[papadanaaa]

There's no need for the spaceship to be in orbit, it can well be accelerating to mantain its altitude o even falling, it wouldn't be perceivable on the duration of the film.

[seansalvador1]

Sorry, but if they went as far as geosynchronous orbit then the whole Van Allen belt side of you theory is wiped out, as they would have to go through it to achieve this!

[only1too]

@andrewh23 "A geosynchronous orbit may be defined as one with an orbital period (the time needed to orbit once around the Earth) that matches the rotation rate of the Earth."

it has NOTHING to do with distance from earth but the speed required to keep IN SYNC with a position on earth... genius...

[mssuck]

ckikilwai, it works quite well. A little bit more touchings of the work you did, it will show much better fakery.

To me, u have just proved yourself, we did not go to the moon. LOL

[seansalvador1]

It doesn't work well at all haha. If you think this is convincing then you really are showing that you are unqualified to comment...

[stalkervision]

The problem with seeing a alien craft that close that was obviously looking for something or someone is that you always wonder was that something you!

[stalkervision]

don't say I want to do this again to soon. I have a feeling now if I ever asked the aliens had men ever been on the moon they would have died laughing though. LOL!

[stalkervision]

You don't know how really fun seeing your own actual spacecraft from another world can be until you do! Makes this all look like a walk in the park buddy. :)

[stalkervision]

Now me and my father are confirmed "ufo nuts" aren't you glad that makes all this other evidence mean nothing..

[ckikilwai]

Maybe the next time your father sees an alien, he should ask if we have really been on the moon, than we can settle this down forever. ;)

[timrocket2008]

When they filmed the earth from 120,000 miles away it was really only 400 miles away. The space station is only 100 miles away

[stalkervision]

ya my father and I are nuts according to our always truth telling government. maybe we should move to belgium huh? LOL! :)

[stalkervision]

It doesn't really matter if your from Belgium does it. This is a world wide hoax isn't it? Try being an american and seeing how I feel! I would love that this weren't all true believe me. The evidence sure doesn't point that way though. Wasn't it your own government that pointed out they believed UFO's were for real finally? Mine hasn't yet, yet my father and I saw one up very close. You have a really good honest government there and are darn lucky i should say.

[stalkervision]

I know this is a shock for your system buddy thinking the government could pull such tricks on it's people. Sadly, it is a real fact that I hate to break to you. I truly wish it weren't. The further I delve into this particular topic the more firmy I am convinced it is a fact,sad to say. You can approach this with a open mind or you can keep spouting the official line because that is the easiest thing to do. The choice is yours.

[stalkervision]

of course this version of the matrix is for real. You can always shut your mind off to this one though as many many have apparently. That is the easy way out. Just believe what your government says even when there are proven instances of it lying time and again. Whitness George Bush and his WMD'S claims.

[ckikilwai]

Actually I'm from Belgium, and my government tells nothing about the moonlanding.

I just believe the people who worked on the project, scientists and engineers from all over the world who said we did go to the moon.

Sorry I believe them, and not some youtube video.

[only1too]

@ckikilwai

even if it's scientists ON youtube?

[KReeMMeeNAL]

@ckikilwai Imagine you are the scientist... imagine you have all those diplomas in rocket enginering and fuel propulsion knoledge...... You took it in? Ok... And now that you have all that knoledge go outside find a one foot thick tree... You found it?... Ok, now touch with your forehead the surface of the tree.You did? Ok, tell me if you see the whole tree.

[stalkervision]

Ya it is a big deal and i mentioned it twice because obviously you haven't watched a thing he did but you are giving me opinions about what he said like you did. It is up to you if you want to watch them or not. You may not want to. He has a lot of solid evidence the govenment isn't being truthful here. It is up to you to "take the red or blue pill"

[stalkervision]

BTW if you thought Jarrah was a "she" even though he is in every one of his video I have seen practically, you don't mind when I call your "evidence claims" a little less then convincing.. :)

[ckikilwai]

You already said Jarrah is a he, big deal, I just thought you meant that same video again. Sorry that I am human and make mistakes.

When I have some time I'll watch his videos, and comment on them.

[stalkervision]

Obviously you have your mind made up already. heck you don't even know Jarrah is a guy! LOL!You haven't watched his videos obviously except maybe from another site that has edited his comments. Like I said it is up to you. Start with a biased result and you will find nothing out.

[stalkervision]

As far as your radation claims I haven't seen any of the evidence you claim to be out there that claims deep space travel is safe except for Nasa. On the contrary I have seen Russian research that says the opposite. NASA it's self is backtracking on the whole subject don't you know which is really suspicious.

[stalkervision]

first Jarrah is a "he" which makes me pretty suspicious you watched any of his stuff much at all and two he does give quite a bit of evidence if you follow his series seriously. There is also another poster that gives excellent evidence on the radation threat in space. I go either way. If one proves to me honestly that the hoax is unreal then I will believe that and gladely and if not I am willing to believe this also.

[stalkervision]

will you honestly give Jarrah and the others a fair shake or just dismiss them out of hand? IMO they have a lot of evidence to back up their claims. Watch them and decide for yourself.

[stalkervision]

and this is your defense? Try looking into the REAL radiation hazards of space fight to begin with, not NASA/Apollo nonesense. Jarrah White's videos are excellent imo and well worth watching. There are also a few other posters that do an excellent job on this subject.

[ckikilwai]

Actually I did look into radiation thing, I posted about it on another video, we have data about radiation from nations all over the world and it is used for commercial satellites and science missions and they all prove the radiation isn't high enough to kill an astronaut.

Jarrah doens't give real evidence, she just calls things suspicious and draws her own conclusions. I need hard scientific evidence to be convinced. I believe she just wants to make money by selling DVDs with false information.

[stalkervision]

Actually your "sticker on the window" is what some are pointing out. They say the earth picture seen was a taped up transparany and the more I see the whole original video and the very important ending the more i believe it is just that.

[ckikilwai]

well then you should watch other videos with the astronauts who went to the moon and engineers who built the spacecrafts. They aren't actors, you'll see they are just people extremely proud of what they have accomplished.

[stalkervision]

You doesn't address a thing the other video addresses. You just say the earth should be spinning. Depending on their orbit and other factors this may not be true IMO. We will say temporarily for the sake of argument your one point is somehow valid. What about everything else the video points out? Don't these points with video backup of each one matter to you whatsoever? Maybe you will address them also.

[ckikilwai]

Alright, the first point the video mentions:

bad quality of the pictures: if I would be faking a moonlanding I would show a clear picture, so everyone can clearly see how America puts the first man on the moon.

But this wasn't possible because they had to send a lot more data through the communication link to Earth than just images, and so they chose the most compact way of sending it to earth, in a format that couldn't be directly converted in a format the televisionstations used.

[ckikilwai]

the rest of the video is just about how they faked the earth in the window, and they end with a speech of Armstrong they just intrepret they way they want.

The video just calls some things suspicious and conclude the things they want to prove.

You can believe them, or real engineers and scientists who say we really landed on the moon.

[stalkervision]

The camera obviously isn't handheld and stays in the same position the whole time. When the irus is opened up and the lights in the capsule switched on it is obvious where this position was and this wasn't right at the window, The Narrator has them dead to rights. Any other conclusion is just silly. Jeck in half the photos the earth doesn't even appear to be round due to using the window as a mask.

[ckikilwai]

It is hand held, you can see the earth move around whole the time.

And the moon isn't round most of the time either, it's called phases, the same thing happens with the Earth.

The explanation of the other video is just silly, there are lots of easier ways to fake an earth at a distance, like a sticker on the window.

[stalkervision]

maybe you can answer this too while your at it . Why is the camera in the back of the capsule when they said it was pressed agains't the window?

[stalkervision]

No, it doesn't prove a thing. Especially since you weren't in orbit to take it. Get over trying to prove the other footage isn't valid. It is. It is obviously a mistakenly released NASA video showing the astronauts deceiving the public. Any rational perdon can see that. Oh you may try this one if you like though. Why is the reflection of the sun in the astonauts visors about 6 times as large as it should be for being on the moon.

[ckikilwai]

"No, it doesn't prove a thing. Especially since you weren't in orbit to take it."

But why do you think it doesn't prove a thing?

Why do I have to be in orbit to prove it?

About which picture are talking? can you give a link?

About the camera, it's a hand held camera, they probably just moved it away from the window.

[stalkervision]

This video also appears to be taken at much lower altitude to to the previous unreleased NASA one. As I said this proves nothing. Better one look at the actual NASA unreleased footage with a open mind then try to prove it is somehow false.

[ckikilwai]

My video was taken 219 miles from earth, the other video claimed the apollo astronauts where only a few hundred miles from earth.

Anyway it proves the technique doesn't work in low earth orbit.

[stalkervision]

This was given as an example of how orbits can very. It isn't the only way. Orbital speeds can very tremendously. The Apollo space capsule had thrusters and could very that speed at will. That is how it could have appeared to be stationary in the Nasa video.

[ckikilwai]

If you change speed you change your orbit.

More speed => you go up, less speed => you go down.

If they would slow down to a speed at which the earth looks stationary they would fall down to Earth.

[cleverbadger]

Ever heard of a geostationary orbit?

[ckikilwai]

Geostationary orbit is outside the van allen belts. If you can go to geostationary orbit, you can go to the moon.

[stalkervision]

wait this isn't a astonaut doing this it is some so called "debunker troll" and his garbage. Better learn about different orbits before you try to prove anything again.. LMAO!

[ckikilwai]

the whole point the other video tried to prove is that astronauts can't go beyond the van Allen belt. A geostationary orbit is well beyond that belt.

[stalkervision]

what a complete laugh. Ya, this is what we call"the sin of omission"  If your in Geostationary orbit with the earth the image doesn't move at all. A astronaut doesn't know this!!!!

[taofledermaus]

Anyone see the Mythbusters Moon landing episode? Very well done.  Is the "deadly" Van Allen (Van Halen :O) belt fact, or theory? I think many Moon Landing skeptics are really people who hate the U.S.A. and would like to try to take this great achievement away from us.

[barflewk]

Ohhh d000Ds I can proove the moon landings were teh fake. That stupit dune buggy is way too small to carry enough gas to get to the noon, and it's tires would have no traction in outar space. I mean, how dumb do they think we are, the moon is like 10,000 miles away or something.

[Artifalia]

And I forgot, wires can be seen on some footages. Look, how can you explain that the blast of the Lem, which is carrying two people in it isn't hard enough to do a crater nor even to put some dust on top of the legs after allegedly landing. The last thing one would do in such an agressive environment like the moon, is playing golf.

[ckikilwai]

Show me a picture or video that shows wires.

When they landed, they only had 3000 pounds of thrust, spread out over a nozzle of 2300 square inches, which means the thrust only generated 1.3 pounds per square inch, and since we are in a vacuum, the thrust goes in all directions, not only downwards, so the pressure on the ground was very low.

And they played golf outside the international space station too, that's also an aggressive environment.

[Artifalia]

I don't think it I know it. No crater, no stars, no emotion in astronauts, too much radiation to cross in van hallen belts, frogs on the stage, spotlights insted of suns, flag moving, lost original footages, atmosphere shaped sand in the rover wheels, stupid behavior of the astronauts while playing golf with the tax payers money...anything else? Secrets are very hard to keep.

[ckikilwai]

these things can all be explained:

no crater: the blast of the moonlander wasn't that hard, and was in a vacuum, so it wasn't powerful enough to create a big crater

no emotion in astronauts: obviously you didn't hear Conrads first words on the moon.

too much radiation from van allen belt: they only stayed there an hour and where protected by the metal of their spacecraft, so they didn't get a lethal dosis.

[loperspest]

You know, I think there might be a conspiricy alright, a conspircy among the consipiricy theorists that is. I have been having a duscussion with one hahawhat99, and they complain that the jokes lightheartednes of the astronauts 'proove' it was a fake. Now we have some one complaing they are too emotionless. *sigh* yoo can't win with these people.

[ckikilwai]

frogs on the stage: explain, or show me photo of it.

spotlights insted of suns: on every photo, each object has only one shadow, so there can be only one lightsource, the sun.

flag moving: it had a ripple, but it never waved unless an astronaut was shaking it.

lost original footage: only the original footage of the first moonwalk were lost, all the other still exist.

atmosphere shaped sand in the rovers wheels: why do you think it is atmospere shaped?

astronauts playing golf: so what?

[Artifalia]

So what. The moon landings are still a hoax, even if we don`t know how this shot was done, we know by now that all you masons are the most ridiculous people in the world.

[ckikilwai]

why do you think the moonlandings were faked?

[un4g1v3n1]

Because human beings didn't want to be irradiatied to death in order to fullfil unrealistic deadlines such as JFK set forth for NASA's moonshot!

They have yet to figure out the shielding issue, which is why no human has gone into or beyond the VAB's EVER!

[marksmartus]

Thank you, I was thinking the same thing when I saw someone put forth that idiotic idea of how the footage of the Earth was made.