Moon Landing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Just one example how easily the shadow „mystery/proof“ can be checked first hand against reality:

1: Go into a dark room
2: Light up a lighter
3: Check the directions the shadows are pointing at using different heights above a surface and different heights of objects that cast a shadow
4: What do you see? Take a special note how different the shadow angles can be if different objects are involved with different sizes/heights/forms/distances from the light source
5: Pretty dramatic differences in angles right next to each other! Pretty interesting and fun isn’t it!
6: Mystery solved unless one is inclined to think that behind your own experiment is also a „conspiracy“
 

Brewer

Jedi
Yeah but in a way it's a good thing. It means they have a conscience, and they're not psychopaths or deviants. It's kinda cute it took a little girl to usurp Buzz.
Interesting if true. 'From Astronauts Gone Wild' Ed Mitchell knees Bart Sibrel in the butt. Mitchell asks his son 'Do you want me to get a gun and shoot him Adam?'. Mitchell's son 'Want to call the CIA and have them waxed?'
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Interesting if true. 'From Astronauts Gone Wild' Ed Mitchell knees Bart Sibrel in the butt. Mitchell asks his son 'Do you want me to get a gun and shoot him Adam?'. Mitchell's son 'Want to call the CIA and have them waxed?'

Interesting if what is true? That video didn't show everything and if the interviewer was invited into the home under the guise of false pretenses, pretending to be one thing and then later backing him up into a corner by having him swear on the bible, I'd imagine quite a few people would be visibly upset and have some choice words in a situation like that. Even the last comment wasn't much to write home about considering how obnoxious the interviewer was after the fact.
 

Brewer

Jedi
Just one example how easily the shadow „mystery/proof“ can be checked first hand against reality:

1: Go into a dark room
2: Light up a lighter
3: Check the directions the shadows are pointing at using different heights above a surface and different heights of objects that cast a shadow
4: What do you see? Take a special note how different the shadow angles can be if different objects are involved with different sizes/heights/forms/distances from the light source
5: Pretty dramatic differences in angles right next to each other! Pretty interesting and fun isn’t it!
6: Mystery solved unless one is inclined to think that behind your own experiment is also a „conspiracy“

OK, have done that but a lighter is not the best source of light, best to use the moon's primary source of illumination or electric lights outdoors. I've shown these images to dozens of people so far they have no explanation for it, my experiments indicate there were at least two different sources of light illuminating the LM. There are four sources of light on the moon; the sun; the Earth; the stars and the moon's albedo. You can rule out the latter two:- and the Earth, it was but a sliver and and high in the sky when these images were taken. Can you explain these overlapping shadows? These are the most obvious examples but they appear in numerous images throughout the Apollo archive and seem only to apply to the LM. Do you have an explanation? Has your zippo in a dark room experiment shed any light on the subject?
 

hlat

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
What makes you think Aldrin said that? Wouldn’t it be a whole lot more logical that Aldrins answer stands in direct context to the question being asked by the girl? Context is everything and as Joe put it „preformed assumptions, confirmation bias etc.“ can easily tamper with our perception of things. I‘m pretty sure we could endlessly bring back pretty much any „proof“ of this „conspiracy“ to confirmation bias and a serious neglect of context, history, logical thinking and common sense.
I heard it and so did BlackCartouche. I'm open to being wrong about it.

SOTT wants to put up an article that the moon landing was fake. Ok, let me take a look. Ok, the evidence looks good. Have you watched the video?

What is the sensible explanation about the Apollo footage where they are in orbit around Earth but pretend to be halfway to the moon?
The only thing I can think of is that this Apollo footage itself was hoaxed.

What is the sensible explanation about no lag in audio communication between mooncraft and Earth?
It takes more than a full second for light to travel from Earth to the moon, according to mainstream science. So the sound converted to EM waves and converted back to sound is going to take more than a full second. The communication lag between the mooncraft and Earth seemed less than a second.

Also, if SOTT thinks the moon landing was real per the official story, then the SOTT article should be moved to the Don't Panic Lighten Up section instead of Secret History.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Here's the quote from Buzz Aldrin on that question from the young girl. Generally, it's a vague response to the question without any clear idea if he's remarking on having never been to the moon or if he's pondering why it hasn't happened again in such a long time, which presupposes that it did happen a first time. At first when I heard it, I went with the former, but the more I read it, I'm inclined to the latter. Although I don't doubt there is something unusual about the way he responded.

For example, when he says "Because we didn't go there and that's the way it happened. And if it didn't happen, it's nice to know why it didn't happen" he could be referring to having never gone, which is what a lot of people have jumped on, OR he's responding to the question in regards to length of time between, and that we didn't go there and is inferring or implying 'in such a long time' and why no one has gone back and that's what he was getting at.

It's very difficult to tell.

8 year old girl: Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?

Buzz Aldrin: That's not an 8 year old's question, that's my question. I wanna know, but I think I know. Because we didn't go there and that's the way it happened. And if it didn't happen, it's nice to know why it didn't happen. So, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going. Money is a good thing.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
@Woodsman, have you seen the uncut Apollo footage that starts around 8:20? It shows astronauts in the spacecraft in orbit around the Earth filming a hoax of going to the moon.

These are devil in the details items, and they're worth addressing at the risk of muddying the waters for readers preferring Black & White realities.

Nothing is ever straight forward.

First of all, let's clear one thing up: The astronauts in orbit weren't filming a hoax of going to the Moon. They were making a press-suitable image of the Earth. That's a big difference.

-Beyond all engineering challenges and accepted mission parameters, public media consumption and propaganda were of course going to be huge issues. Some department, I have little doubt, (Fletcher Prouty even hinted that the CIA might have had agents involved), had a mandate to ensure the public face of the mission presented smoothly, given Russian competition and the political climate.

We see fake polish and corporate oversimplifications constantly with every organization where large investments, public perception and what we today call "branding" are on the line; even when successful products are brought to market, we see over-simple liars versions in their marketing. The astronauts had almost certainly been ordered to comply with a public relations department, and like booking time on a big computer, (or satellite) such a department would likely have used their allotment to have them to produce nice pictures and press-suitable content on schedule. If you want a cool picture of the Earth when all you have is a white-balance destroying video image in the window, then it's not much of a stretch to think that cosmetics would have been employed. It didn't seem like they were using specific tools created for the mission to fake a smaller earth, (which would reasonably have happened were it actually an elaborate hoax); rather it looked like they were making it up on the spot. Like tucking away a dirty bed sheet and picking up empty dishes before making your FB photos. Something along those lines would be my first guess on the list before I reached the "Faked Absolutely Everything From Whole Cloth" option at the bottom.

You also bring up the time delay issue. -That one is a really intriguing item for a few reasons. You'll notice that the most thoughtful and dedicated of the debunkers will leave that one off their long lists of damning evidence. -Which is because, I'm guessing, despite its 'gotcha!' allure, upon close inspection, it is actually a weak assertion without reliable proof.

For one thing, there are conflicting reports from people recalling the original broadcasts; some claim that there were indeed long pauses between voice transmissions as would be expected, while others remember it differently. So, basically, it's 50 year old witness testimony from people with extreme biases, rendering it next to worthless. The original transmissions themselves are hard to come by. Nobody had VCRs in the day, so all the video available was created post-mission for press consumption, allowing for reasonable doubt to enter the equation. It's not a long stretch at all to suggest that dead air was cut out to save on broadcast time and make it more appealing.

Second, the official transcripts in fact include the voice transmission delays of the expected several seconds at the contested moments.

Third, (and this one is my favorite) people have become accustomed to video and audio being combined into a single signal. But that's not how it worked; there were no mics on those video cameras. Everything was sent through a primary broadcast antenna along with all the other bits of instrument data from the LEM, but they were unpacked as separate data streams on Earth. Any audio would have been a separate 'file', so to speak, and it would be up to the editor's discretion as to how to release it. Presumably, they'd just line up the time synchs with video, but there would have been no data loss on the video itself if the audio was edited to reduce hanging air for later press kits and such. It is also argued that a listener would be able to tell if there were cuts in the audio, but that's by no means a certainty; static and 'room tone' can easily marry nicely together without any perceptible hiccups between clips.

Beyond all of that, however, and this is just an opinion, it doesn't seem like the kind of error anybody would actually make. -When constructing an elaborate hoax with years of planning? It's just too dumb. It seems like the kind of thing which would have been long before recognized as a possible fail point and easily accounted for. If I was building a fake space program, I'd have put an artificial delay on the comms precisely so that it wasn't left up to the pilots' acting abilities. -At such a critical point of contact between public relations and the world at large? Entire teams of rocket scientists wouldn't be so incredibly stupid as to miss a clunker like that! But like I said, that's based on nothing more than my own conjecture. (Seems reasonable to me, though.)
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
OK, have done that but a lighter is not the best source of light, best to use the moon's primary source of illumination or electric lights outdoors.

Why would a lighter not be a good source of light to test out how shadows cast? I'm confused why you would even have such a thinking pattern. A source of light is a source of light, period. The whole point of this little experiment is that you can check out yourself that one single source of light that is able to cast visible shadows is enough to create all those "strange shadows" including the overlapping ones. If you like, you can use another light source too, that emits enough light to cast shadows; it makes no difference to the question at hand. In fact, you can go out into the sun and check out how shadows cast on the ground live too, with the exact same results, depending on where the sun stands in the sky (which time of the day it is) and the different sizes/heights/forms/distances of objects that cast the shadows. Different sizes/heights/forms/distances of objects is the key here together with the height (or angle) of the light source to understand why shadows cast as they do.

I've shown these images to dozens of people so far they have no explanation for it, my experiments indicate there were at least two different sources of light illuminating the LM.

The little experiment proofs without a shadow of a doubt that one light source alone can produce all those "strange shadows" including the overlapping ones. Try it and just observe the results. What do you see? Do you really want me to document and take a picture of the resulting shadows so that you can see it yourself? Just do the experiment and you will see exactly what I've said.

There are four sources of light on the moon; the sun; the Earth; the stars and the moon's albedo. You can rule out the latter two:- and the Earth, it was but a sliver and and high in the sky when these images were taken.

Yes, there was only one light source bright enough to cast visible shadows; the sun. As the little experiment clearly shows, the resulting shadows are absolutely consistent with that same single light source. You don't need any other light source to create all those shadows, period.

Can you explain these overlapping shadows? These are the most obvious examples but they appear in numerous images throughout the Apollo archive and seem only to apply to the LM. Do you have an explanation? Has your zippo in a dark room experiment shed any light on the subject?

Yes I and everyone else can explain it via a little experiment like the one I proposed. I just did it. Just try it and observe the results.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
These are devil in the details items, and they're worth addressing at the risk of muddying the waters for readers preferring Black & White realities.

Indeed, the comment about the "flat earth vibe" of this thread IMO refers to precisely this lack of straight thinking in some of the material presented here.

As you said WM, the whole moon landing thing WAS a propaganda operation; nobody doubts that. But this doesn't imply in any way it was a hoax!

As for the video on sott, it was emotionally manipulative and unconvincing in my view. For example, the silly trashing of 60ies technologies doesn't cut it; tell me exactly, precisely, why and where the technology was lacking, but don't give me a comedian making stupid jokes about it.

Also, to compare the delay of a straight line of sight FM/AM signal (speed of light) to a modern video connection of a news agency (going through tons of intermediary stations in a big network, including satellites) is silly and manipulative. It's comparing apples with oranges for people who have no idea how this stuff works.

Why is there no delay of ~2s in the radio communication? The conspiracy logic seems to be "Look, there's some YouTube video with no delay, therefore Hoax!!". But where does this video come from? Is it cut or edited in any way? How was the audio track recorded back then? As Woodsman said, they in all likelihood used some kind of tape recorder to record the radio communication and had to mix it together with the analog visual transmission somehow. How did they do it? And how did they edit it? You cannot just skip all these and other considerations before you come to a conclusion.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Don't forget that Soviets were working at the same time on the program of crewed moon landing but repeatedly failed. It was a real "moon race" and a "matter of honor" between US and USSR. And I think that if US crewed moon landing was a hoax then USSR would be the first to officially expose it as such. They surely had capacity and resources to do that.

Edit: spelling
 
Last edited:

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I heard it and so did BlackCartouche. I'm open to being wrong about it.

SOTT wants to put up an article that the moon landing was fake. Ok, let me take a look. Ok, the evidence looks good. Have you watched the video?

Yes I've watched it. I heard it too, but it seems like we heard two different things. Context is everything. Without taking context into account very diffuse and various explanations for what he said can be offered especially if one is bend on believing "it was faked". The same holds true for everything else, not just this "conspiracy". Context is a fundamental building block. I still don't see how "the evidence looks good". In fact, as I see it, "the evidence" looks as bad as it can get for this "conspiracy" to "be true".

So let's recap that sequence in the video and try to put things a little bit into perspective by taking context into account and assuming that they went to the moon:

- Different astronauts who went on the moon are confronted and frankly rudely harassed by "moon hoax" believers in their private spaces and the astronauts are understandably not very happy about that and what they know first hand to be utter nonsense and perceive, rightly so, as a personal attack on their integrity.

- Buzz Aldrin punches a man in the face (who likely is a moon hoax believer) that comes up into his private space and accuses him rudely to be essentially a liar and thief in context to his landing on the moon. Buzz even says; "Can you get away from me [probably thinking to himself something like; "and my private space and stop harassing me with this nonsense"]?" Which the guy ignores and Buzz than punches him in his face. Quite an understandable reaction.

- Context; Buzz and other astronauts who went to the moon have likely zero patients with such nonsense and feel personally insulted and attacked by rude people who tell them that they are liars about this topic by invading their private spaces and questioning their integrity

- Now the video in questions starts

- Context: Book festival; a girl asks Buzz a question there

- The girls asks Buzz: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"

- Context here is: The girls question, which clearly states in the sub context, that we went to the moon and that this hasn't happen for a long time since.

- Likely context: Both the girl and Buzz operate on that basic promise/context and approach both the question and the answer from that angle

- Buzz answers with the above context in mind, which is again; we were on the moon and the girl asks why we haven't been there since

- Everything Buzz answers refers back to this context and takes this as the common ground from which to answer the question

- So logically, what Buzz says is likely in direct context to this basic fact and should be interpreted first and foremost in this way before even jumping to any "conspiracy" thinking in regard to the landing

In short, moon hoax believers don't take the context into account and not even try to entertain the logical step that Buzz is not talking about the moon landing being a hoax but the question of the girl with the stated context; the landing happened.

If somebody feels the need to break this down even further, by dissecting everything he said there, step by step, that could be done too. Do we really want to go there though and invest even more energy? I can tell you now, that all he said can be logically and sensibly interpreted not with him "knowing the landing was fake" but instead with him "knowing it happened". It is a far more logical step to interpret it this way, especially considering the context, instead of going the "hoax" way.

Quite clearly, Buzz is not talking about the moon landing being a hoax but is referring to a completely different context which both he and the girl understand to be true IMO.
 
Last edited:

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
@Joe, what do you think about the video on SOTT?

For me, the strong points for hoax were: 1. Apollo footage where they are in orbit around Earth but pretend to be halfway to the moon; 2. No lag in audio communication between mooncraft and Earth; and 3. Aldrin saying they didn't go to the moon to the 8 year old girl.

Not convincing IMO. 1) The entire narrative about them "pretending to be halfway to the moon" is provided by the woman's voice over. Nothing in the actual recording suggests anything that she suggests. 2) Radio waves travel at the speed of light in the vacuum of space. Communication between Apollo missions and earth were point to point. TV communications like those we see every day from one place on the planet to another go through several relays, hence the variable delay that we often see. 3) It's obvious that when Aldrin said "we didn't go" he meant 'we didn't go again', in response to the girl's question.

If some idiot repeatedly came up to me and demanded that I swear on a bible to "prove" that the negative things he has been saying about me are not true, I'd tell him, in no uncertain terms, to take a hike. Most normal people would I think.

Seems to be that the guy who made this video is not interested in really questioning, or finding out the truth. He has an assumption and he's interpreting data to fit that.
 
Last edited:

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I don’t see how this has anything to do with flat earth, besides the fact flat earth conspiracy was astroturfed in recent years by cointel to shutdown suspicions against government propaganda. Now anytime someone suggests something against your padded status quo you can just quack out “flat earther!” and flutter away from the issue.

Seems lazy.

What's lazy is the tendency to assume that conspiracy theories have some kind of inherent validity rather than questioning them as we do the official story. I could never understand why some people who clearly have the skepticism that allows them to be open to "conspiracy theories" do not use that same skepticism to determine whether or not the "conspiracy theory" is anywhere close to the truth. To me that seems a logical approach, but then I suppose some people just want to believe rather than want to know.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom