The MOON HOAX

[Observer]

Thank you Maat for helping me realize I was being overly positive last night. Yes, 99.9% of the 7,000,000,000 are being subjugated, controlled and exploited, and the poorest 75% (the Third World folks) are being exploited to a hellish degree, so although the poorest have slightly freer minds, their bodies are suffering so much more.

Thank you Flabbergasted for helping me realize that even my estimate of Third World "mind freeness level" was wrong. I guess I was imagining a big percentage of Third World folks still living in huts WITHOUT exposure to any media sources. Hearing your report makes me realize the only folks WITHOUT exposure to the mind-fuck bullshit are Fourth World folks.

In the link I found above, and in my estimates above, one thing which is entirely not mentioned is, "How many Fourth World folks are living today?" How many humans are still living in forests, mentally free from EVER having been exposed to the bullshit, and physically free from EVER slaving for masters? I'm defining ultra-rare Fourth World folks as humans who have NEVER seen any "photo" image or book, and have NEVER worked for any paper-waving-masters. I think forest humans not yet contacted by "society", simply eating yams and berries, have much more free relax time and nap time, thus are living much happier than Third+Second+First World humans.

Anyway, sorry for over-thinking the original question. Since I bumped us to a new page, I'll simply repost Simon's recent question here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2394696#p2394696

MY TRIVIAL LITTLE APOLLO POLL

I have a little question, trivial as it may be, lingering in my head these days. Let me just formulate it right here - for anyone who might care responding to it. Of course, it is just a mere thought exercise - as no one can possibly know the precise, thruthful answer to this statistical query, but anyway, here goes:

What percentage of this world's inhabitants do you personally reckon still, in 2015, firmly believe (that is, in REALITY, according to your personal / best estimation, and disregarding the various polls you might have bumped into here and there) - that men have landed on the moon?

Whether your answer is 99% or 1% - or anything in between - please elaborate shortly as to how you reached your own evaluation. By the way, I am still scratching my head as to my OWN reckoning about this - so please allow me some more time to think about it!

[Selene]

*
MY TRIVIAL LITTLE APOLLO POLL

I have a little question, trivial as it may be, lingering in my head these days. Let me just formulate it right here - for anyone who might care responding to it. Of course, it is just a mere thought exercise - as no one can possibly know the precise, thruthful answer to this statistical query, but anyway, here goes:

What percentage of this world's inhabitants do you personally reckon still, in 2015, firmly believe (that is, in REALITY, according to your personal / best estimation, and disregarding the various polls you might have bumped into here and there) - that men have landed on the moon?

Whether your answer is 99% or 1% - or anything in between - please elaborate shortly as to how you reached your own evaluation. By the way, I am still scratching my head as to my OWN reckoning about this - so please allow me some more time to think about it!

Simon, what a difficult question to answer! And because of that a great one to ask.

First of all; my motivation to start with -even reading- Cluesforum was Apollo itself, hence my name. Looking at my own life, I believed 96.7 % of my own existence on this beautiful planet that man went to Moon (including the years I was just crawling around in diapers ). So a mere 3.3 % of my life I am convinced "we" didn't. A pretty staggering number, I'd say. Purely ignorance by the way.

Then, looking around me, I did not ask any of my real life friends about their thoughts, but I'd say 90+ % or so believes "we" did.

On your question I'd like to make a geographical distinction, based on culture and my own perceptions:

1 - "The West" - Canada, US, Europe (excluding Turkey, let's say EU+), Australia & New Zealand
2 - Latin America & Caribbean
3 - Middle East (including Turkey) & North Africa
4 - Russia + former non-European FSU (Former Soviet Union)
5 - Asia (excluding Russia/FSU & Middle Eastern Asia, like Iran)
6 - Subsaharan Africa + island states etc.

Please do not hold this rough division against me, it's just for practical purposes.

Very hard to answer this, but I'll give it a try and hope to include some thoughts, in the end that's what you asked for.

Also, you specifically underlined "firmly believe" and I have to divert from that as well as it's very hard to say anything about "firm beliefs" of other people. Rephrasing the question to a black & white one would be:
"Did man land on the Moon" - only possible answers are yes or no, so there are no "I'm not sure" answers (~evenly distributed into both "camps"):

1 - West - 80% - the acceptance that (Western) media are telling the truth is so pervasive that I think this number is very high
2 - L-A+Carib - 70% - a little more people who reject the mass media stories
3 - ME+NA - 50% - much more resistance against the Western media, US-critical thinking more widespread, etc.
4 - RUS+FSU - 60% - although similar thoughts about the US are held, their own space propaganda works against them
5 - Asia - 80% - I do not know Asia that well from first hand, but I'd say a lot of people will follow more Western views on it
6 - Africa - 60% - main reason to put this lower than the other big numbers is that the people feel that all the space money is not well spent

Guesstimating (I didn't look up exact numbers, just a rough idea) the amount of people in each of the "regions":
1 - 1000 million - 80% = 800
2 - 800 million - 70% = 560
3 - 600 million - 50% = 300
4 - 300 million - 60% = 180
5 - 3700 million - 80% ~ 3000
6 - 600 million - 60% = 360

Total # of believers = 5200 out of 7000 ~ 74% of the world population does believe man landed on the Moon & 26% is on the right track, no matter their other world's views.

Selene

True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it
Karl Popper (1902-1994)

[Starbucked]

Apollo 15 Photo Analysis Using Stereoscopic Parallax Proves Fakery

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Apollo Investigation
A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine

Photographs taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions are regarded as the most compelling pieces of evidence that mankind went to the Moon.


The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.

Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.

The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:

the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
than a few hundred metres;
the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections.

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.

[roastrunner]

The faked moon landings may not be that important in the grand scheme of things, but they bother me a lot. What do I tell my boy when we look at the moon together at night? I can describe its history, its size, its distance, its tidal-locked orbit, its relevance to animal behavior, but I can't say anyone walked on it. Nor do I wish to describe the hoax when it's not official - I can't bring myself to do that to my children.

So for personal reasons, I'd like to put the nail in the Apollo coffin. Supposedly damning evidence will be declassified in 2026 but I'm not holding my breath.

Of course, if the "Transparent Astronaut" isn't enough evidence, what is?

Here's my contribution:

Apollo 17 Flag Setup (NASA's archive)

At 11 seconds you can clearly hear the hammer hitting the flag-pole holder. Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.

[anonjedi2]

What do I tell my boy when we look at the moon together at night? I can describe its history, its size, its distance, its tidal-locked orbit, its relevance to animal behavior, but I can't say anyone walked on it. Nor do I wish to describe the hoax when it's not official - I can't bring myself to do that to my children.

Why do you think you know the moon's history, its size, distance, or orbit and why would you communicate any of that to your children, seeing how none of it has been proven by NASA or anyone else on this planet?

Why would you do that to your children?

[roastrunner]

Are you being sarcastic?

If so, that's a little harsh. Especially since I had made an interesting and relevant post to go with that.

Let me explain. We can't know anything for certain. All we have are probabilities.

The probability that the Apollo missions are faked is very high. My reluctance to explain it to my son is due to it not being a mainstream attitude. Do I have the right to indoctrinate my child with my anti-establishment views? I'm not sure. Thus I would like it to become an established fact.

The probability of video evidence of men in low earth orbit being faked is also very high, as re-entry seems unsolvable to me.

The officially-blessed distance of the moon being 230,000 miles, on the other hand, is probably right. We can bounce lasers off the moon, and that seems as good of a measurement as anything else. It's unlikely that the December 1966 issue of Scientific American talking about successful laser targeting was made up. There's a video on youtube of an Arizona observatory pinging the moon. True the video claims they're hitting an Apollo laser reflector, but there's no reason to discard the video just because they don't know that they're hitting random moon-stuff instead of a disco ball.

The history of the moon is probably as we are told - that it split off from the Earth in the early years. Why? Because it seems likely. We can trust out instincts. It would be far less likely that an object that large got caught in orbital velocity that close to us as it flew through the universe.

I can go on if you want. The moon's tidal-locked orbit makes sense if you think about it. Highly probable that it exists as we're told. Over 4 billion years the variances in the moon's makeup will cause its rotational velocity to stabilize at a speed where the densest portion faces the Earth at it orbits around the Earth. There would be greater gravitation force pulling the denser portion of the moon towards the Earth than the less dense. I don't know this for a fact but it seems highly probable.

If you're going to question the fundamental story of our solor system's creation, that's fine, but you could see how it makes your reply to me seem out of bounds.

[rusty]

The history of the moon is probably as we are told - that it split off from the Earth in the early years. Why? Because it seems likely. We can trust out instincts. It would be far less likely that an object that large got caught in orbital velocity that close to us as it flew through the universe.

Even if I'd embrace heliocentric, old earth theory (I don't) I'd consider this the worst bullc**p ever brought up. Why? Because it seems highly unlikely. Of course this could only work if the earth was a drop of hot molten fluid stuff and somehow a smaller drop was separated from that large drop for what was to become the moon, when both drops were cooling off later on. How else could two (almost) perfectly round bodies form, when one was ripped off from the other?

And why then, doesn't earth's rotation "lock in" with the sun?

No, we don't know anything for sure. I can't even tell if the laser experiments were faked or if they are real and if they'd work the same way in a concave earth, inverse universe scenario (my preferred model of our world). Anything seems possible. I'd rather lean to "fake". Why let anything open to chance? Faking those would be a piece of cake, and those "results" could easily be used to fool us all, as they seem to "prove" both the Apollo landings and heliocentricity.

[roastrunner]

Apollo 17 Flag Setup (NASA's archive)



At 11 seconds you can clearly hear the hammer hitting the flag-pole holder. Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum.

(Edited for derailment prevention)

[anonjedi2]

Are you being sarcastic?

If so, that's a little harsh. Especially since I had made an interesting and relevant post to go with that.

I was not being sarcastic by any means. I was asking you with genuine curiosity.

The officially-blessed distance of the moon being 230,000 miles, on the other hand, is probably right. We can bounce lasers off the moon, and that seems as good of a measurement as anything else. It's unlikely that the December 1966 issue of Scientific American talking about successful laser targeting was made up. There's a video on youtube of an Arizona observatory pinging the moon. True the video claims they're hitting an Apollo laser reflector, but there's no reason to discard the video just because they don't know that they're hitting random moon-stuff instead of a disco ball.

Have you ever used a laser to measure the distance to the moon yourself? If they made up the moon landings, they couldn't just make up the distance to the moon and publish it in one of their propaganda magazines? Surely a video on Youtube and an article in a magazine from 50+ years ago isn't all you're standing on here, is it?

The history of the moon is probably as we are told - that it split off from the Earth in the early years. Why? Because it seems likely. We can trust out instincts. It would be far less likely that an object that large got caught in orbital velocity that close to us as it flew through the universe.

Probably as we are told? Why would you assume that? Why would you even assume that the moon is a land-based terra firma object "that split off from the earth" at all ?? To me it doesn't seem likely at all. As far as I can tell with my own senses, the moon is just a light in the sky. My instincts tell me that the moon is much closer than ~237 thousand miles away. I should trust my instincts, right? Why do you even believe in the concept of orbital velocity? Can you prove such a concept?

I can go on if you want. The moon's tidal-locked orbit makes sense if you think about it. Highly probable that it exists as we're told. Over 4 billion years the variances in the moon's makeup will cause its rotational velocity to stabilize at a speed where the densest portion faces the Earth at it orbits around the Earth. There would be greater gravitation force pulling the denser portion of the moon towards the Earth than the less dense. I don't know this for a fact but it seems highly probable.

No, it makes no sense at all, as I think about it. 4 billion years? Where do you pull that number from? None of what you're saying has any evidence (outside of NASA's stories) to back up any of it. It's not only *not* highly probably, it's highly unlikely. I think you've been seduced by too many of NASA's lies.

If you're going to question the fundamental story of our solor system's creation, that's fine, but you could see how it makes your reply to me seem out of bounds.

As mentioned, I was not being sarcastic at all, I was being completley genuine in my questions to you. Your ideas of the history of the moon, its position and relative size, distance etc. are more than likely complete fairy tales. They come directly from the same people who lied to you about landing on the moon. So, logically, why would you buy into any of it for any amount of time?

EDIT TO ADD:

In your introduction, you said that you've been reading this site everyday for years. If that's true, how can you still believe in the official history, size, shape, distance and details of the moon? If you truly have been reading this website for years, how can you believe anything that comes from NASA or a silly fictional magazine like Scientific American? I'm having a hard time processing this, please do explain if you don't mind.

[fbenario]

EDIT TO ADD:

In your introduction, you said that you've been reading this site everyday for years. If that's true, how can you still believe in the official history, size, shape, distance and details of the moon? If you truly have been reading this website for years, how can you believe anything that comes from NASA or a silly fictional magazine like Scientific American? I'm having a hard time processing this, please do explain if you don't mind.

Over the last year or so more and more new members say some version of this in their introductions, thinking it somehow establishes their bona fides, implying that we can thus just assume their good faith and welcome them with open arms.

Doesn't work like that! The only thing establishing bona fides and trustworthiness is the content of their posts, which after all these years we've learned to be suspicious of and question.

[simonshack]

*
Dear Roastrunner,

I find this paragraph of yours quite amusing - 'semantically speaking', sort of:

The probability that the Apollo missions are faked is very high. My reluctance to explain it to my son is due to it not being a mainstream attitude. Do I have the right to indoctrinate my child with my anti-establishment views? I'm not sure. Thus I would like it to become an established fact.

So, you have anti-establishment views - but you would like the hoaxed Apollo missions to become an established fact.

My obvious question would be: what does the word "ESTABLISHED" really mean to you ? Will you finally consider the MOON HOAX a truly established fact (which you can share with your children) only on the - very improbable - day that a major, mainstream news/ or science magazine acknowledges this fact? Or do you trust your own mind a bit more than that?

As it is, one of this forum's primary objectives is to encourage everyone to use their own critical minds whenever assessing any sort of 'established knowledge'. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of 'indoctrination'.

[roastrunner]

anonjedi2,

I apologize for taking your response personally - I shouldn't assume I know anything about the moon for certain. I do believe if nothing else that orbital velocity makes sense, as it's a system at rest if you look at in the right context. I don't understand how it could be done practically with satellites as it would involve too many minor corrections since the earth's isn't perfectly round and its density isn't evenly distributed. I haven't quite convinced myself that satellites don't exist though. Too hard to explain global telecommunications that existed in the 60s.

Simonshack,

I regret posting a tangent about establishment indoctrination. My views on that aren't relevant. I do hope for the day that a major media outlet publishes an article debunking the moon landings. I read a report by someone who discovered the telemetry data for Apollo 10 while searching for the Apollo 11 archives. He didn't care about it, but I believe it would be blank if inspected. Perhaps that would be definitive.

All I meant to say was that I noticed you could hear effects from the soundstage in the nasa Apollo videos that couldn't possibly be heard if they were in the vacuum of the moon's surface. I hadn't seen anyone mention that before. I know the Apollo footage has been debunked to death, but I thought I would add my own little evidence to the archive.

[Critical Mass]

I do hope for the day that a major media outlet publishes an article debunking the moon landings.

Why would you even care if you had been reading this site 'for years'?

As for worrying about whether or not to tell to your Son what you actually think... I find that truly bizarre.

Son: What's that?
Dad: The Moon... it's probably a small world a great many miles away.
Son: Can you get there?
Dad: Some people say they can but those people lie a lot & the evidence for their supposed journey is... less than compelling.
Son: What do you mean?
Dad: Here let's watch it*

Or some variation of that... I'd hardly call that an 'indoctrination'.







* I suspect most believers have never even watched what we're told to believe is real.

[smj]

roastrunner,

If you can't stop believing in satellites; tell your kid to watch this video by the United States Army. It's our response to those dastardly Russians and their Sputnick during the IGY. We called our first artificial moon 'Explorer 1'.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjcQASp8Kg

You won't have to explain anything, any child can see that M.Sgt. Stuart Queen, Van Allen, and Von Braun were completely full of shit.

[simonshack]

Dad: Here let's watch it*

* I suspect most believers have never even watched what we're told to believe is real.

I just couldn't resist making a short animated gif of this seriously funny moment of "Neil's first steps on the moon"...



Indeed, dear CM - the hysterical Apollo 11 TV show is a must watch for everyone...