Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

Because they turn around, you can see it, you can hear them talk about it. Later they go straight and even a little turning left.
Yes it is that simple. The camera itself might have been turned on its axis as well during that drive which adds to the "strange effect".
They're retracing their tracks, you can see them in some frames before they make the turn to the left at 1.00 and after that too before the camera swings forward. They're only a few metres away from the tracks and they're either running parallel to them or on them. I cannot see any evidence that they deviated from them enough to to make the shadows change that much in 150 metres or so.
 
The well known "Apollo" program was merely a charade for public consumption, the footage was a studio production.
It was needed to conceal the fact that some circles are in possession of superior technologies and major conventional industries would have been hurt immensely, if the secret technology would have been exposed.

From 1.21.20 we can understand how they got to the moon and that they may still be going there today... who knows?
Documentary has a lot of disclosure that we know from the sessions

It can be listened to in French;
 
They're retracing their tracks, you can see them in some frames before they make the turn to the left at 1.00 and after that too before the camera swings forward. They're only a few metres away from the tracks and they're either running parallel to them or on them. I cannot see any evidence that they deviated from them enough to to make the shadows change that much in 150 metres or so.

It really seems like you're fixated on a minor detail - for others not clued in on the subject, they could easily follow your logic and wander off the path. I think the majority here acknowledge the general moon landing happened (multiple times) but some other facts remain murky.
 
Hi. The camera rolls at 0.06. Look at the rock shadows directly in front of the camera, by 1.00 they've moved about 160 degrees, the LR has traveled up to 180 metres in this time (based on LR specs, it may have traveled less) retracing it's tracks over undulating terrain. By 1.20 the LR has completed a 90 deg turn and continues across similar terrain and the shadows remain consistent despite the terrain for the remainder of the video. Why the large movement of shadows in the first minute then consistency for the remaining 3? I've never experienced anything like this on earth.

View attachment 30512View attachment 30513View attachment 30514View attachment 30515
I believe one can explain this if there is a drastic rotation of the camera plane relative to the light source. One could do this experiment outdoors. Take a camera, look straight at where the sun is. Now rotate 90 deg. to the left and snap a picture of a scene with clear shadows. Next return to position when looking at the sun and now rotate 90 deg. to the right and snap a picture of shadows. Compare pictures.
Is that what is going on ? I have no clue as the Moon is a strange place.

My attention was next firmly focused on that "Hanging in Space" left hand's motion starting around 1:07. At exactly 1:25 transitioning to 1:26 one can better see that it is doing nothing, just floating. It is not hanging on to something that might be a steering mechanism. Then at the end of 1:26 we get the message,"Camera Stopped". I am just amazed how they selected the moment when this is done. Guess they were trying to conserve film.
How is that buggy steered ? Feet ? Right Hand ?
 
This is madness.

I remember spending an afternoon with some high resolution photographs, Photoshop and digital perspective rulers to test claims that shadows were not falling correctly on the LEM and that this indicated artificial lighting. After a few hours work, it became apparent that the claims were wrong and the shadows weren't.

When the fevered, deep down the rabbit hole conspiracy theorist holds up a dark and blurry picture which could be either the moon, a pond or a piece of toast, and proclaims that one can, "Clearly see _!", but no matter how hard you squint, nothing at all is clear, you can reasonably suspect that the theorist is verging on schizoidal fantasy with his pattern recognition running amok. It's best at that point to get some sleep followed by a strong dose of fresh air and sunlight. And maybe come back the next day with a clear head and a plan for how to rationally test the claim beyond just eyeballing it and spinning stories.

It is every individual's responsibility to not lose the plot.

Hi Woodsman
It's good that you've been researching the shadows, I've been doing it too, I'm an amateur but I'm enjoying it. Been browsing the Apollo Flickr archive and found these images taken from within the Apollo 14 LEM. Clearly shows double shadows, can't see any evidence of double exposure and the entire film magazine is there to see including the calibration chart Apollo 14 Magazine 65/KK. Below is a screen snip from one of the images. There are 15 photos in all, view the last 6 and watch the overlapping LEM shadow move.
doubleshadowLEM.PNG
 
My attention was next firmly focused on that "Hanging in Space" left hand's motion starting around 1:07. At exactly 1:25 transitioning to 1:26 one can better see that it is doing nothing, just floating. It is not hanging on to something that might be a steering mechanism. Then at the end of 1:26 we get the message,"Camera Stopped". I am just amazed how they selected the moment when this is done. Guess they were trying to conserve film.
How is that buggy steered ? Feet ? Right Hand ?

Thanks for your thoughtful reply regarding the transverse to station 13 video. I'm currently downloading all the relevant data and will post further in the coming weeks. Regarding the Apollo 16 GP video, I find the lack of movement of Commander Young driving the LR puzzling. In other videos he and other 'nauts are very animated, jumping, saluting, hammering and throwing things, they can even nod their heads.

However while driving the GP Commander Young doesn't even a wave or salute the cameraman! As you point out his right hand seems somewhat disconnected to the joystick and yes that was the only control the LR possessed, no pedals.

The camera stopped message is part of the script. Apollo 'nauts had cuff cards on their left wrists to remind them of their tasks , I've provided an image of the actual GP task list. The cards aren't that big, I don't know how they managed to flick those tabs in their bulky armoured space gloves!

Cheers, Brewercue card grand prix.PNG
 
Hi Woodsman
It's good that you've been researching the shadows, I've been doing it too, I'm an amateur but I'm enjoying it. Been browsing the Apollo Flickr archive and found these images taken from within the Apollo 14 LEM. Clearly shows double shadows, can't see any evidence of double exposure and the entire film magazine is there to see including the calibration chart Apollo 14 Magazine 65/KK. Below is a screen snip from one of the images. There are 15 photos in all, view the last 6 and watch the overlapping LEM shadow move.
View attachment 30577

There are logical frameworks which the researcher needs to encounter and start building if they're going to get anywhere.

For me, a big, useful piece of my Knowledge Map was painted by looking at the claim, "The same mountains appear in different photos of different foregrounds. They don't change or move! They must be part of a painted studio backdrop."

Great! I could test that.

I took two images the plaintiff was objecting to, ones with the same mountains on the horizon but with two different foregrounds and I overlaid them in Photoshop, with the top layer made partially see-through, enabling me to see how well they lined up.

They didn't. They came close, but the same mountains and middle ground hills in the two photos had been shot from different angles, and you could tell.

Great. Test done. These were not painted backdrops, but photographs of real features.

Now here's the interesting thing: this experiment didn't just invalidate the "painted studio backdrop" claim by proving that the action was taking place in an area with actual mountains.

It ALSO meant that any claims which require a fake studio environment in any capacity could be dispensed with. -Which is most of them.

Next logic bomb, and this is one you can benefit from because you seem stuck on shadow and light artifacts: If the scene was shot outdoors as the above logic makes evident, then they would have had to have groomed several acres perfectly so that there were no plants or rogue lights or organic debris. There was a lot of powdery dust evident which couldn't move or change. They would have had to shoot the whole thing during an extended period of zero wind, zero rain, zero snow or clouds. In 1969, there were no post-production digital effects available to ease over the problems.

With the attention to detail required to accomplish this feat, with the hoaxers disciplined and paranoid enough to create and manage such a shooting environment, (it was claimed by some conspiracy theorists that Stanley Kubrick himself oversaw the project), then they were obviously alert to the minutia of photographic evidence and were very smart and very good at their jobs. Is it then reasonable to suggest that these same hoaxers would be so damned idiotic as to make gross, lazy errors with their lighting rig?

No.

Those two logical tests were for me enough to prove the hoax claims as unreasonable.

There are mundane explanations for rogue light sources; the hills and geologic features themselves.

If you want to see what is involved with creating a fake moon scene, look at this article where professional film makers were tasked with doing exactly that with modern film equipment in the recent film First Man, and then judge for yourself if such a feat could have been flawlessly accomplished in 1969:

In order to stay within the budget, they had to find their location in the Atlanta area, where most of the film was shot. Miracle of miracles, they were able to locate a perfectly colored quarry there. Shaping it up was a massive undertaking. “We’d have to sculpt the land over five acres, sculpt the background so we could gradually take the landscape up,” Crowley recalls. “They took all their machines out and really helped sculpt the bulk of it, and then we would take the 500-foot area for where the landing’s done. So we pretty much matched it perfectly, crater-by-crater, rock-by-rock, because it was so well documented.”

Why the size? Well, it had to be a big space because they wanted to minimize the amount of computer touch-up needed to blot out trees and other extraneous objects — they’d be shooting at night, but such things might still peek out for a viewer, and too much effects work can detract from the magic of IMAX. [...]”
~How First Man Faked the Moon Landing

Bearing in mind that they didn't have to deal with the persistent fine dust issue. They conveniently omitted showing it, and in fact cheated a lot on the Moon surface shots and thus avoided the many challenges which would have come with such a shooting environment. And frankly, it still didn't look as real as the NASA media from 1969!
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Apollo 16 GP video, I find the lack of movement of Commander Young driving the LR puzzling. In other videos he and other 'nauts are very animated, jumping, saluting, hammering and throwing things, they can even nod their heads.

In 1968 Kubrik brought out one of his masterpieces. Here is a small detail from it.

30588


2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay was written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, and was inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel". A novel also called 2001: A Space Odyssey, written concurrently with the screenplay, was published soon after the film was released.

Kubrick was far ahead of his time on so many things. Even mundane logos were known to him before they were used. Note ESA logo. In 1968 it did not exist :-)


agency_logos.png


Or the JAXA logo,
AbbreviationJAXA
MottoOne JAXA
Formation1 October 2003; 15 years ago
Successor agency to NASDA 1969–2003, ISAS 1981–2003 and NAL 1955–2003
HeadquartersChōfu, Tokyo, Japan

Just amazing ;-)
 
I kinda sit on the side that thinks, as the Cs seemed to confirm, we did, but that the Apollo missions themselves were not what they were presented to be. There’s a lot of evidence that the lander could not have even done the mission, so no, when we saw Armstrong set his foot down it was theater, possibly staged with the assistance of Mr Kubrick. Of course I also think the “faked mission” conspiracy is misdirection (like the 9-11 Truther stuff) keeping people trying to prove or disprove what ultimately doesn’t matter. How we got there and when (and with whose assistance) is where the fat of the meal is.

This is of course just my opinion.

I should add that my father was an astrophysicist who worked on the Apollo for Rockwell and JPL. I have little doubt we got up there. It’s the on there part that’s dodgy.
 
Hello All!

Continuing with my shadow fixation, found double LM shadows in missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 so far in monochrome and colour. I won't post them but they're there for anyone to see in various archives.

Take a look at this one from mission 12. AS12-48-7024 and AS12-48-7026 from Apollo 12 Magazine 48/X

as12holeyLEM.PNG

Not only is there a generous overlapping second shadow, there's a hole in the ascent stage of the LM. It looks big enough to hurl one of Gus Grissom's lemons through it, with room to spare! In the above image you can see the regolith and a small stone. In this one, AS12-48-7026, the edge of a small crater is in the bright spot . Go to the originals and take a look. Is NASA this sloppy? Apparently so, about two dozen times so far with the LM shadows alone.

For the record, I'm not just 'fixated' on the shadows I'm also fixated with the gloves, cuff cue cards, radiation and a whole bunch other stuff. It's fascinating!

Cheers, Brewer
 
You keep dropping these items without comment other than to say things like "Is NASA this sloppy?", which doesn't mean or explain anything, as though you believe it is up to others to explain whatever it is you think you are seeing for you.

I've gone to some effort to explain my thinking on this material; I believe my logic is sound but you haven't offered any comment on it one way or another; I can't tell if you understood me or if you even read it.

So it's your turn: I suggest you put together a cohesive narrative which explains what you think you are seeing with these various pictures you are sharing and then subject that narrative to logic tests to see if they can fit in Objective Reality. Then share your work so that others can critique it.

Just dropping pictures and vague suggestions is pointless and energy-expensive for others. (For instance, I don't understand what the glove cue card image was supposed to represent. Whatever point you were trying to make with it wasn't clear to me.)
 
Roger that!!!

The moonlandings were probably one of the first major “conspiracies” that I got involved in. For a few months I was obsessively reading pros and cons, in the process swaying multiple times between “They did it!” and “They didn’t do it!”.

After a few months I came to the conclusion that both sides had good arguments, and that the devil was - as usual - in the (technical) details, which I was unable to assess one way or another. So I gave up this quest, and I am still sitting at the same point as when I left (having done no more new research since then), that ... I don’t know whether they did or didn’t go to the moon.

But for me there is a bigger question looming in the background: What difference does it make for me to know whether they did or did not? Sure, in general, I want to know the truth, and knowledge is power. And it would be another example of how humanity as a whole is treated (but do I really need another example in the long litany of injustice and manipulation of the general populace?). But again, the devil is in the detail. After having spent a few months and not having come to a firm conclusion either way, is there any benefit in continuing the quest, or is it maybe better to just say, that at the moment I cannot answer the question, and that maybe some new data will become available that will sway me either way in the future?

Because such a quest can easily lead one astray. Instead of focussing on what I can do NOW - namely to improve the working of my machine - I go on a wild goose chase that will neither improve my machine, nor make my life or the life or those around me better. I’d say, in such a case the quest for truth may well be a self-deception.

That is why I have given up researching this question, and why I don’t plan to re-research it anytime soon. That of course might change one day ... we’ll see!
I fully agree with this. While I understand the enthusiasm in researching the moon landings (been there, done that), it’s worth considering if time and energy is better used elsewhere, on more pressing matters. Besides, I’m sure there are many discussion forums out there about the ML where one can debate all the nitty-gritty details. As nicklebleu says, what is the goal?
 
Back
Top Bottom