Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Fox recently showed a conspiracy program which shows that America might NOT have actually landed on the moon. Did any of you catch it?

I was able to get a copy and was very surprised by the evidence they provide.
Heres a list:The American Flag shown being planted in the moon flaps, even though there is no air or atmosphere on the moon.Despite clarity of deep space, the stars were missing from the black lunar sky.No blast crater below the lunar lander. Where the powerful rocket would have fired.If the speed of the lunar footage is increased, it looks like astronauts are on earths gravity, suggesting its slowed down tape.Snapshots taken by austronaut suggest there were two distinct source of ligting even though the sun was the only source for them. A snapshot is below: http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_1.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_2.jpg

There was a ton of other stuff, but I can't be bothered listing them all.

I wondered if this would ever make a GDF thread!

There was a C5 programme about this a few days back as well, which I missed, and an in-depth discussion during rhe 30th anniversary, which I DID see.

Now, I DO think we landed on the moon. But beyond doubt, there are a lot of interesting questions that NASA MSUT answer if they want to quell speculation!

The most brilliant 'error' is Buzz Aldrin's feet, which somehow are in different postions on the photos than they are on the film and he climbs down the ladder... whoops! Something wrong there...

What about the fact that with todays high powered telescopes you can see the base of the lunar landers that were left behind. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

And where did all those Saturn 5's go?

Sorry, didn't see the program.

I never saw the flag flapping in the original news releases.

RC, current conspiracy theory is that the landers went there, but there was no-one on board. Radiation making the trip impossible for humans is meant to be the barrier.

Here's a pretty good site explaining all the "unanswered questions" posed by the conspiracy theorists.
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/tands.matthews/moon_hoax.html

There are countless other sites out there that say similar things too.

Oh, I know, I have check this out before. Still, as I see it:

1. Why doesn't NASA itself provide the answers? They really are only making things worse by staying quiet all thew time.

2. There are still a few points unasnwered, wherever I go...:

a. The film/photo inconsistency I mentioned above, which is incontrovertible proof that one or the other (probably the photo) is a fake- though this is NOT proof that there were no landings at all.

b. The cosmic ray problem (that site you gave, Shoe, disucusses the problem of the Van Allen belts... I had never heard the belets as a problem! Just goes to show there are always more crazy ideas....). Plenty of modern day phsyics makes out that cosmic rays would be lethal evben on a short trip like that. Space is much more hostile than we believed.

c. The photos... oh God, some of the nuts talk for hours about those... some of them are pros, and oif course some of the people who argue the other way are pros, and it really does get enormously complex and difficult to understand... so forget that one...

d. The guy who desinged the camera swears blind that it shouldn't have worked. I understand the damn thing wouldn't have even been able to wind on.

I am of the opinion that the moon landings DID happen, but most of the shots they got were so poor that they faked a few for our convenience.

Heck no, they just put a lunar lander in a studio and made it look crappy. I bet they made the footage at the same time they did 2001: A Space Odyssee. Just some testcases for Doug Trumbull.
They only way to find out is go there and check out the evidence.

If it was a hoax, it would definately be the hoax of the century. Much bigger than bigfoot and the crop circles secrets revealed.

Actually, I thought we had talked about this once before, I remember queeq and I discussing Capricorn One, about the fake Mars landing.

Actually according to the program we cannot see the flag or the buggys left behind, even with the best telescope in the world. Although a Japenese rocket will be going there next year to take close up pictures.

On the flag waving theory, the website Shoe gave said the austronauts were causing the waving. Have a look at this, it looks like wind to me:

http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_3.jpg

There was the temperature thing aswell, when they are in the shadows the temperature goes -250 and in the sun +250, and supposedly the suits can't handle that sort of temperature change.

How can you say it looks like wind in a STILL image?

Sounds like the shopw took a completely unbiased view of the whole thing.... NOT.

shopw? whats that?

Anyway that pic was a capture I took from the video, which clearly showed it flapping independently from the austronaut IMO.

So, the basic gist of the show was that the moon landings were a 3.5 year long hoax (Apollo 11-17).

What happened to all the Saturn V Launch vehicles?

What about the splashdowns, how where they achieved.

Did the show actually recognise that Apollo missions broke the atmospheric freshold?

What purpose would a hoax be? Aside from a massive finacial coverup?

Actually the program suggested that no man has ever landed on the moon, due to radiation and what not.

That is also the supposed reason why Russia to this day has never landed on the moon.

I'm going to call Area 51 and get this whole thing straightened out.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hoax, knowing our lying scummy government.

Hmm...talking about Area 51, thats what the proggie said was used for the filming...and why its off limits.

Well that's not right at all. Area 51 has been off limits since 1950, because that's where they took all the Roswell junk.

See! An excellent location for a secret soundstage.
You shouldn't believe everything you see on tv or read in the newspapers.

So what we are saying is that all the work Lucas has done in the field of special effects was actually already done by NASA in the 60's and 70's

They must have done SOMETHING with the $40 Billion budget they had

Wasn't the spacewalk broadcast on TV? Valid point queeq

$40 Billion, that seems a little low.

Two words. Apollo 13. If we faked all the moonshots then why fake a huge accedent like that? It makes no sence because of the cold war. We were in a propaganda battle and a screw up like that would never be faked.

And they spacewalk all the time with suits not much different from the ones used in '69.

RC was right they have seen the landers from telescopes on earth.

The movie Apollo 13 is just a remake of an old NASA script from the early seventies. They do a lot of movies from old tv series nowadays, remember. This is just another along those lines.

Yeah, funny Queeg.

My point still stands. There is absolutely no reason to fake A13.

Have fun batting this around

But is the flag waving in that photo or is the corner just bent ?

Oh.

You know, I don't think Mulder and Scully ever did this one.

I never saw it "waving" in the original footage.

Well, Raz said so.

I'm not sure a moving flag is conclusive proof. There are a number of plausible reasons.

The one that springs to mind is a resonance in the material. It would act very differently in a zero atmosphere, low gravity environment to the way it would act on the earth.

Heres more captures to show the flapping:
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_flag_1.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_flag_2.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_flag_3.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_flag_4.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_flag_5.jpg

Looks like it folded, not flapped, but still images can be decieving.

Any chance you can capture the short segment as an AVI, MOV or MPG?

OK, I'm encoding the flag bit now.

Heres is some more "evidence". The following photos are supposedly doctered as the cross-hair don't appear topmost:

http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_cross_1.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_cross_2.jpg
http://episode2.virtualave.net/forum/moon_cross_3.jpg

Looks suspicious enough, but I still belive they landed on the moon. They wouldnt be able to conseal a hoax on this scale for that period of time. Dont anyone give me that Roswell crap as an example for coverups.

(serves Finti Roswell crap on a silver platter) Have some anyway...aren't you just dying to see those alien bodies ?

I just don't think they could have faked the whole entire thing. Maybe parts of it.

I can't bring myself to believe it for a minute.

I can't believe it myself, but thats no excuse to dismiss any sort of "evidence" that comes up. Keep an open mind, I'd say.

Anyways, heres the small video clip about the flag waving: Download (8.44MB, MOV)

Thank heavens for DSL,

I don't dismiss it, but I can't believe it. There's always a spin on these things.

What aboot the camera on the outside of the landing thingy that film'd em comin out of the craft effort?

Did they go out turn it on timer mode run back in and then walk back out ??

Actually, that shot was never shown live so I think they may have.......

Maybe they did go and then staged the whole thing becuae they forgot to put film in their camera's.

Is it impossible BTW that there is anything like wind or storm on the moon? Does anyone know?

Now, I have the answer to that one here...

So no wind. Okay, maybe Armstrong farted.

No-one cares about the photo inconsistency, I pointed out.

But JW, are you mad? Apollo 13 was a GODSEND for NASA. It single-handedly re-engineered interest in the space programme (that was losing interest) and made NASA into heroes! If I was going to fake ANYTHING it would be Apollo 13!

Absolutely. Get those ratings up. They didn't have such a thrill until JR was shot.

The photo inconsistencies DO matter. Why on earth would they fake moon pics if they had been there? It doesn't make sense.

Maybe the lighting was bad. In a studio you have much more control.

Well, if they matter why did no-one comment on them? I went to all the trouble of telling you about them, woe is me etc.

They really are a very funny cock-up! They could have mixed them with rehearshal footage in error, though. Unlikely, but then so is the faked landings!

The one thing I see wrong with that peice of evidence is this. Even if it was faked, WHY would the cross pass behind the back? Did they show how the thought the image was produced?

Not really, if you think of the pressure NASA were under to get to the moon. Especially with the Cold War and all.

In response to RC, thats easy - Human Error.

BUt I can't see a way to make the cross go behind the pack unless the pack was added to the scene later? Is this what they implyed.

If they shot on a sound stage would they not have used the cameras with cross hairs?

The might have used layers, or something along those lines.

Look, like I say, SOME shots are DEFINITELY faked, but beyond that we don't really know much.

But why go to the expense of faking photos? What would it achieve?

Well, purely from what I am talking about here, I don't think any of the shots are 'fake', as such, just not from the moon landings.

According to Raz it was waving. he just used a still from the video footage.

There's also this huge publicity thing going on. Not only do they want the Russians to look bad, they also need the support the US public to cheer them on. So you shoot a couple of scenes in a studio where lighting and staging is optimal. Doesn't matter if they really landed or not.

Raz is right on the hurry up part. There was a big race for the US to get on the moon first. They were probably in such a hurry, they cut corners, thus the inconsistencies in the photos.

I think the US beat the Russians to buying the rights to Jules Verne's Journey to the Moon. That's why they could film that and the Russians couldn't.

Well, one look at the last episode of Tom Hank's moon series proves THAT, Queeq...

Well, there you go.

Well, I liked that movie.

And you're welcome to it.

well dont you think the Russian would have emphesized on those mentioned subject if it was a fraud. They would have been all over the landing if they thought it was a hoax, they were just as skilled in Russia/USSR as they were at Nasa. So no they landed on the moon no doubt, at least in my mind.

This is STILL something that is causing controversy, having looked around a little.

I still reckon the landings happened; the Russian reaction alone is enough to convince me of that. But in any case, one of the counter-arguments thrown back at Conspiracy theorists is that they should know better than to question NASA, who are apparenlty God-like and infallible.

Excuse me? NASA are human just like the rest of us. Any organisation that scratches a mission because of a metric/Imperial measurements mix-up is perfectly capable of, say, cocking up the realism on fake moon shots.

Personally, I strongly believe it did happen.

Next someone will say that the International Space Station is a fake...

Or that they don't really lauch shuttles at the Cape.

Cerainly I still think it will take more to convince me that it was faked.

But still, VERY interesting stuff all around.

Well, having seen the setup at Kennedy I can't believe its one big fake.

Sapcestation doesn't exist except for the mock-ups here on earth. Mir didn't exist. They are just more excuses to put sattelites up there to keep an eye on us and to place military equipment up there. Who knows what's up there? Who can check it?

Well, there are these things made called telescopes, and they use them to see things far away...

Really like I said before, they have seen the lunar lander from a telescope.

Also I have seen the space shuttle coming back to earth and it was special! It made one HUGE streak across the sky, then the whole line faded at once. It was like nothing I've ever seen. It was awsome!

One more, Apollo 13 was the last mission to the moon, if that was a hoax or publicity trick for morale, wouldnt they have continued going on with a hoax than put the whole of NASA on the back burner till the early '80s when the space shuttle came in?

And while I'm on a topic...
Someone said that it was faked on a sound stage.
It was also said that proof that it was faked was the flag was 'waving'.

Um, excuse me, but if it was filmed on a sound stage then there would be NO 'wind' or even enough airconditioners to make it move on a set that big. The flag moved because it was held by the astronaut.

Ahem, obviously you don't know very much about moviemaking. There are huge fans that can simulate any kind of storm on a soundstage or outside on location. They can sure make a flag wave, I assure you.

Jameous, I hate top worry you but I think the astonauts of Apollos 14 thru 17 might have something to say about you statement concerned 13 being the last mission...

Apollo 14 - Jan '71
Apollo 15 - Jul '71
Apollo 16 - Apr '72
Apollo 17 - Dec '72

Also, the Russians have landed and successful controlleed two robot craft on the Lunar surface. The Lunokhod vehicles manouvoured around the moon surface and sent back valuable scientific data.

RC is right, and while it is difficult to rpove there is at least good indictation that NASA's funding would have been cut if it was not for the increased public interest caused by Apollo 13.

Still, who really knows, eh? I just find the whole thing fascinating, that's all. Some shots are DEFINITELY faked, that's the thing, but it still seems very likely that the landings happened.

Actually it is provable. NASA has gone on record to say that the Apollo 13 mission was "good for the space business" as it raised public awareness and helped them secure funding.

That said, they still scrapped at least 4 Apollo missions (18-21).

Ok, I retract my statement about the last mission. It was late, I wasnt thinking.

But I do know something about movie making. Thats what I do (when I have a job).

I meant they would not have wanted to use a fan to make a storm (or wind or breeze) if it was filmed on a sound stage. It wouldnt be authentic. IF it was filmed on a stage then the air would not have been moving enough to move the flag. That would have required a fan (or several for the size of the 'set' in some shots). That would be obviously wrong, and unnecessary to the 'production'. Thus no fan. no flag waving.

Like I said its the same argument to prove the hoax that counterdicts the other pro hoax argument.

Queeq works in that sort of area too; we'll see what he thinks, but assuming hat it WAS a hoax I still wouldn't put it past NASA to have put in the breeze erroneously.

And 2 film makers go head to head....

No, I won't do that.

Maybe they shot it outside at night. I dunno, doesn't seem too hard to simulate that.

And don't forget Salvage One....

Salvage one?

You never saw Salvage One

Nope. Doesn't ring a bell.

About a scrap merchant who builds a roket out of an old cement mixer lorry drum...

Ok, outside is a bit more likely, but still far feched. That would bring up alot more isssues than a sound stage.

And the flag could have been waving in a solar wind thus meaning it WAS on the moon when that happened. The reason for no stars in the background is that the cameras werent that good. They were washed out by the glare off the moon. In fact the streaming video that many people use for their home computers are just a bit better than those used on the moon. The one that captured the 'first step' was a remote camera deployed out of the side of the lander. Thats how alot of them were taken in fact. Thus the camera did come before Neil came out. No hard trick there.

Also I saw it was stated that if you speed the film up it look like they are walking at normal speed for the earth. MAybe, but what about the fact that they were hopping 2 feet off the ground? Was that just mirrors and wires? It makes too little sence.

I've heard of the movie your talking about, but what is the name of the one that came out in the mid '70s about this issue? It was the one that planted a seed of doubt that has now sprouted into this whole mess.

Queeg, I work for a low budget film co. here in the states ,but not in LA or NY. Who do you work for (generaly)? I've had the pleasure of working on 4 features and some of those may be available in Europe. But you wouldnt want to see them (bad acting in all).

I think that solar wind idea is far fetched.,

However, you DON'T see starts on camera, this is true. Not cameras off Earth, anyway In fact, it is very difficult to see stars at ALL, camera or no camera, while you are outside an atmosphere. They simply don't show.

That remote camera thing is very true; was there doubt on that?

SOME shots were still faked though...

This is only true when there is a large celestrial body emiting so much light that the ambient illumination drowns out the stars.

From the dark side of the moon, the view of the galaxy is amazing.

OK, i found out it was called Hanger 18, or 17 or something like that.

It was the one that started this all.

It was made as a 'what if' premice, but now people use it to point to the conspirecy.

nice subject, wish i would have seen it earlier.
think about it like this. its the cold war and the two super powers are u.s. and russia.
they beat us to space but we beat them in the power of special effects. the moon landing was an egotistical cinimatic attempt to secure our dominance over the world(which is groing more annoying everyday). and for whoever read what i wrote in the 4 of july talk im not contridicting myself... what i love about this country lies in its history not its present. i love the thought that our founding fathers said that men SHOULD be part of a militia. "A GOVERMENT THAT FEARS THE PEOPLE IS FOR THE PEOPLE." ben franklin. any way i dont believe that we landed on the moon.

Apart from a "feeling" is there anything particualt about the moon landings that makes you believe that?

all the things posted previosly that disprove the landing, dont feel like repeating all of them but the flag waving or not-seems like it should have no motion at all. and one i didnt see is that scientist projected a large amount of moon dust that would have collected over the mass amount of years that didnt scatter when the spacecraft landed. also just on of my hunches is that california and surrounding states have plenty of desert that would make a wonderfull moon with the right setup.and we all know whats in cali...HOLLYWOOD. i could be wrong and it wouldnt be a first but thats just my humble opinion.

Valid comments of course, but that kind discounts all the pro stuff doesn't it.

Are you riding the fence or on what side RC?

I might ride the fence if I had something a bit more substancial than it looks like it could have been.

Oh certainly not. I firmly believe than man DID go to the moon.

OK, we agree for once. Not as strange as me and Ush, but still...

Like I said, I think we went, but if I could see some indisputible evidance I'll go with it. I've never set my belief in stone on any thing.

It would have to be alot more than a waving flag, it would have to be a cut scene showing a sound man holding a boom mike without a space suit or something of the like.

Having seen the Saturn V, and having seen a shuttle depart, albeit from a distance.

Plus the russians went to the moon remotely, as did the chinese.

Yep, Ive seen the rocket type that took Apollos to the moon, and they are massave.

Several people saw the astronauts get in them and then they took off. How that was hoaxed is beyond me, but it still is a question.

Also like I said I saw the shuttle re-entry the earth's aptmosphere. It was special. I have yet to see it actualy take off. That may be on my 'to do list' before I die.

Well, the only evidence we have is tv-images and photographs. Some evidence. All that can be tampered with and no one can check out the real place. So we just have to believe the government and we know how reliable they are.

we would have spoted the strings It`s not like it was muppet show there, or maybe it was PIGS IN SPACE

Nah, the effects in Pigs in Space were better. Which proves the point that the landing was a hoax.

So where did all those Saturn V rockets go? And how did they fake the re-entry of the command modules.

Those events were witnessed by 1000's and also broadcast around the world live but 100's of independant television companies.

They landed in Colorado

PLEASE!

ugh, if it was Pigs in Space, then I'll have to try to get a job at Jim Henson instead of LFL.

(Not that that would be a bad thing)

portraying Gonzo?

Or Beaker?

Fozzy maybe. My girlfriend said I reminded her of a teddy bear.

But I can do Gonzo's voice and I played the trumpet almost as well as he can.

There you go then. Need help with your application form then? I hear it's covenient to be able to read and write to fill it out.

DO you mean my spelling?

Now you see why I work in the visual medum and not the written.

ehh No

Neither do I. It helps to be able to read call sheets.

I can read, I just can't spell. Its a form of dyslecia that I have.

I always made A's in school in every class except for english.

I read quite alot in fact (and not just all the SW novels before NJO but I did those too)

If I had a spell checker (or wasnt lazy enough to use the one I have via cut/paste) then no one would ever know

Jameous, are you our fozzy?

Well, I'm fuzzy...

And not just my body hair either

Oooh! Fuzzy Jameous! Nice...

OKay..I think I can safely put this one to bed..