Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Wandering Star]

About 20 years and something more of Laura, Ark and some more talking with their future self.

They asked and received an answer.

Carla asked Ra (Law of One) and received a response.

Interesting, right?

 

[nicklebleu]

The entire human race is stuck in one giant game of "Catch Up" for most of these subjects.

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!

 

[Brewer]

What exactly was "off about the on-board interviews with the astronauts"?

Here's some thoughts on the ISS: Visit the ISS.

What exactly is "off"? I can't see anything off.
Why should it be a "model" and the "driver a mannequin"? Why should there be a "painted background" on "a large set"? I can't see why that should be the case. Because the background is dark? Have you ever tried to watch stars at night in a bright environment like a city? If so, how does the night sky look like?

Been looking at videos regarding this and there are cinematographers that say it's a model and there are painted or projected backgrounds according to their analysis but at the moment I can't say. I agree that stars would not be visible on film unless the surface was over exposed. Stars may be able to be found if one had the original still Ektachrome transparencies. Perhaps detailed analysis would reveal stars not visible to the eye. People have been analysing the images available and though they find no stars some curious artifacts are present in some. Things that look like cuts and masking, suggesting edits using early 70s tech.

One thing that stands out about video are the shadows at the beginning of the clip. I now much has been said about the misaligned shadows on the still images but these are moving on video and it looks like there's a second light source at the beginning and end of this 50 second segment. There's only two possible light sources on the moon. Sunshine and Earthshine, doubt it's the latter.

I've taken screen clips and added markers and comments. I've included the times they occur as they appear on You Tube.....


After image 3 the LR heads off in the direction of the LM then returns to it's starting point. Here it is on it's way back, note the shadow directions. This image is for context.
In this image the LR has returned to it's starting point, the video cuts to another scene unrelated to this one after this.


Watch this segment repeatedly at slow speed. I can't see how albedo could account for the lack of shadow where shadows should be. Here's the link again, from NASA's own channel. Apollo 16 Lunar Rover Grand Prix HD

I can't follow what you are saying there. The camera is mounted on the vehicle and can be moved sideways by an operator, which seems to happen in the video. In the moment you see other tracks in front of the vehicle.

I can see where you're coming from, I'm searching for someone who could analyze this to see if it was filmed while in reverse. Will let you know if I find anything. I'm also looking at the still images from NASA's Project Apollo, that's for another post, there's a lot of material to cover. Thanks

Brewer

 

[flashgordonv]

Roger that!!!

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!

Couldn't agree more. SO easy to put way too much energy into this and similar questions. And to what end? To satisfy your curiosity perhaps. What will change if you conclusively prove one way or the other? Likely nothing. And you will never produce evidence that will satisfy somebody in the opposite camp. Just look at global warming and vaccines as good examples of that.

Better to spend time on your machine as Nickelbleu said

 

[Woodsman]

Here's some thoughts on the ISS: Visit the ISS.


Been looking at videos regarding this and there are cinematographers that say it's a model and there are painted or projected backgrounds according to their analysis but at the moment I can't say. I agree that stars would not be visible on film unless the surface was over exposed. Stars may be able to be found if one had the original still Ektachrome transparencies. Perhaps detailed analysis would reveal stars not visible to the eye. People have been analysing the images available and though they find no stars some curious artifacts are present in some. Things that look like cuts and masking, suggesting edits using early 70s tech.

One thing that stands out about video are the shadows at the beginning of the clip. I now much has been said about the misaligned shadows on the still images but these are moving on video and it looks like there's a second light source at the beginning and end of this 50 second segment. There's only two possible light sources on the moon. Sunshine and Earthshine, doubt it's the latter.

I've taken screen clips and added markers and comments. I've included the times they occur as they appear on You Tube.....
View attachment 29391View attachment 29392View attachment 29393

After image 3 the LR heads off in the direction of the LM then returns to it's starting point. Here it is on it's way back, note the shadow directions. This image is for context. View attachment 29394
In this image the LR has returned to it's starting point, the video cuts to another scene unrelated to this one after this.
View attachment 29397

Watch this segment repeatedly at slow speed. I can't see how albedo could account for the lack of shadow where shadows should be. Here's the link again, from NASA's own channel. Apollo 16 Lunar Rover Grand Prix HD

I can see where you're coming from, I'm searching for someone who could analyze this to see if it was filmed while in reverse. Will let you know if I find anything. I'm also looking at the still images from NASA's Project Apollo, that's for another post, there's a lot of material to cover. Thanks

Brewer

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.

 

[mrtn]

@Brewer, I first thought there is something to what you have shown with your pictures and it made sense. But only with these pictures. When I watched the actual footage again it looks fine, nothing odd.
posting the video again here:

 

[Brewer]

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.

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

Hi Woodsman, there's no harm in looking and no hard feelings and I've been searching around. Loving the ISS vids! There's more detailed Apollo videos getting released, I'd like you to have a look at this one, tell me what you think, pay close attention to the first minute and twenty seconds, thanks, Brewer

 

[Cosmos]

I'd like you to have a look at this one, tell me what you think, pay close attention to the first minute and twenty seconds, thanks, Brewer

Can you explain what you are meant to say? I've looked at it and couldn't see anything unusual.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Hi Woodsman, there's no harm in looking and no hard feelings and I've been searching around. Loving the ISS vids! There's more detailed Apollo videos getting released, I'd like you to have a look at this one, tell me what you think, pay close attention to the first minute and twenty seconds, thanks, Brewer

When I viewed this video the first time what stood out for me was the "pepper effect" all over. I take it I am to interpret what I see as shadows. At 0:56 in the lower right one long shadow for what appears to be a small stone but another stone is much larger and yet has a shorter shadow. This could be due to lunar surface undulation and the slope of the formation they are on.

I have never been sold on the Moon Walkers by NASA. What speaks volumes for me is that they never went back.

 

[Woodsman]

Hi Woodsman, there's no harm in looking and no hard feelings and I've been searching around. Loving the ISS vids! There's more detailed Apollo videos getting released, I'd like you to have a look at this one, tell me what you think, pay close attention to the first minute and twenty seconds, thanks, Brewer

It's a neat video. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in the first minute and twenty seconds.

I have significant bias on this subject. I've already explored it to death and came to a satisfactory conclusion. It has been filed in my mind as, "Solved", so I don't really have the patience to go exploring much in these picky bits of amateur sleuthing which are littered with immediately obvious faults.

But who knows? So I did wearily try to clear the slate for your benefit and see what it is you are seeing. I looked at those still images linked above. The first problem is that the suggested direction of sunlight is simply wrong. Try to determine it yourself using what you know of light behavior, bearing in mind that the scene is a 3 dimensional landscape with the sun in the sky somewhere. The arrow in the picture, upon which all the suspect 'evidence' is based, only addresses one dimension, (badly, imho), and makes no effort to isolate the two other axises which are relevant. The supposed shadow problems don't look like problems at all to me. They look like the results of a 3D terrain and subjects represented by 2D media (and overzealous pattern recognition.)

The only item which did stand out is the final image where it does appear that rocks on the left and right of the image had different light sources, but it was barely a blip of film; we did not have enough data to determine the true shape of the subject and the various forces playing visually. It should be remembered that a hole in the ground will have the reverse shadow that a rock will have, and it can be difficult to tell the difference between a protrusion and a depression, especially in vaccuum where there is no atmosphere to create clues as to depth/height due to light diffusion. Taken in concert with the mountains of other data available which very strongly suggest that the moon was visited as described, it seems unlikely that a small bit of such low-quality evidence to the contrary is worth much.

Several years back this whole subject was brought up and there was an exploration thread written on it. I contributed my fresh (at the time) thinking there:

Dave McGowan's new series "Wagging the Moondoggie"

A lot of the old image links are broken, but it's worth reading through, along with Dave McGowan's original essay of claims if you can find it.

 

[Ursus Minor]

There are plenty of weird and spooky secrets haunting our world, plenty of deep and dark actual conspiracies, but the Moon Landing is simply not one of them.

I became acquainted with the "moon landing conspiracy" right after 9/11 when I joined the internet.
In the wake of the WTC abomination, witnessing a giant conspiracy unfold in the media I was prepared to disbelieve anything that had an official narrative. Thanks to the information disseminated on this site.

Not being a rocket scientist I must admit that I had fallen for the A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon conspiracy. My impression was (and still is) that we're being lied to and cheated every step of the way.

So for once we were not.

But I have no regrets for watching with glee when the US flag was shown fluttering on the Moon (though now we know that is was not due to a studio door being left open) or for laughing out loud when NASA had to announce that they had lost all the original recordings of the moon landing (knowing now that they must have existed).

I'm just satisfied that a number of conspiracy theorists managed to beat the PTB at their own game, taking the narrative away from them. It was made possible because the internet could be used quite freely at the time.
Today such an achievement (concerning current subjects) would probably be next to impossible.

Google, Twitter, Facebook and others of their ilk would be quick to sideline them for hate speech or whatever.

 

[Brewer]

Can you explain what you are meant to say? I've looked at it and couldn't see anything unusual.

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.

 

[mrtn]

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.

 

[Cosmos]

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".

 

[aragorn]

I just noticed, that there's a website that takes you through the Apollo 11 mission in 'real time'. It's quite nicely done – audio, images, transcripts, video...2k photos, 11k hrs Mission Control audio, 240 hrs space-to-ground audio. I just jumped here and there in the mission a couple of times, listening to the conversation, and it was quite entertaining.

Quite impossible to go through it all, but have a look if you're a "moon landing buff"!

Apollo 11 in Real Time

A real-time interactive journey through the first landing on the Moon. Relive every moment as it occurred in 1969.

apolloinrealtime.org