The MOON HOAX

[simonshack]

Skeptrick,

Seeing where you type from, I can't help but thinking of the classic old sentence:

"HOUSTON! WE HAVE A PROBLEM!"

[icarusinbound]

Simon, perhaps it is possible that at the time the bosses/reviewers/owners of these scenarios, within that unique untried artificial universe (be it the Moon, or NYC), in the absence of any other frame of reference, believed it to be sufficiently convincing.

Of course, now, any new simulated realities are going to have to be of a much-higher quality of content...to convince us jaded skeptics, who can (for now) still see the gaps in the scenery.



What I'm trying to figure-out is that if the Moon and the Earth have major rotational axes that are pretty-much parallel to each-other (ie the North pole of the earth always maps to the 'north' pole of the Moon...because, the permanently-facing side of the Moon always retains the same top-to-bottom relationship when we look at it)....why didn't the 'earthrise' look like this?? Upright, as it crept over the lunar horizon, if we're pretending that's the way it would look from the moon..

http://superiorplatform.com/animated_gi ... _earth.gif


If the half-earthrise is professing to be real, as we look at it in the 'lunar gif', that would mean that the terrestrial north pole would be to our left, and the south pole to the right, and the leading-edge of the rising earth would be rotating into the computer..

However, I feel that that NASA's Coriolis cloud-banding is wrong, I think that the gappy blue chunk is more in keeping with the southern hemisphere rather than the northern landmass-heavy 'top' of the world...which would mean that this could also be a mirror image, as well as being false??

Do people here follow what I'm trying to say overall? Or am I suffering fom some kind geo-chauvinstic northern hemispheric illusion here?

Also, see http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth which purports to show what the Earth looks like, right now, from the surface of the Moon...and it *appears* to support my interpretation of mutual Earth/Moon polar alignment, rather than NASA's sideways up-crawl...?


(ps Hollycrap, your "second experiment" videolink doesn't appear to want to work in UK/EU...blame it on rights management or maybe my techfail...with 'something more sinister' taking third place )

[hollycrap]

yes, icarusinbound I understand the point you are trying to make.

That means the command module was revolving around an equatorial orbit. Is there a way to find what kind of orbit they purport it was, I think they say it was a polar orbit, though I might be wrong. (lunar Polar or Lunar Equatorial)

I layed down your earth rotation and tried to accommodate it to the fake Apollo montage.

For this to happen you would have to be in a Lunar equatorial orbit. No way, this animation as I display it is impossible It's impossible!!!!!! Thanks for your logical explanation of why the Lunar Apollo earth rise is fake. The earth's terminal shadow (or terminator) CANNOT be ever parallel to the MOON's horizon, nowhere on the MOON, because their polar axes are oriented in the same direction!!!!!!!

[fbenario]

The soundtrack to this rediculous orientation changing craft?:

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

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOSARRZiC2g

Pylon was one the three great Athens, GA, pioneer new wave bands with The B-52s and R.E.M. For many of us they were THE Athens band, but unfortunately broke up before gaining much acclaim. Peter Buck, guitarist for R.E.M., once said he was sad because he knew he would never write a song as good as this. From those of us who were there back in the day, Pylon still has an enormous respect of respect.

This is their debut single, which I remember owning. As a commenter says, they have always been criminally ignored and neglected.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdo3mw0Rx7Q

And my fave.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doE0tpoA5tU

[fbenario]

Is it extremely stupid or testing the limits of human stupidity? The NASA people don't care! Like most Americans I have met.

The vast majority of Americans are gullible and bloodthirsty. TPTB have ALWAYS known this.

[fbenario]

Note the extreme difference in how you handle a question not even directed towards you as a person versus hollycrap's response. You are not doing much to put forward the truth if all you do is treat me with the same sneering superiourity that no doubt Apollo fans treat you when you confront them.

That attitude is cancerous and you would do well to treat fellow skeptics with some modicum of respect rather than furthering the image of the "asocial conspiracy nut."

Please try to move past your own all-wise, all-reasonable vision of yourself, and take the comments/critiques of others at least slightly more seriously. The comments you dismiss so blithely were well-spoken by a member experienced in this area. Responding defensively blocks your own ability to learn and be open-minded.

[lux]

You are not doing much to put forward the truth if all you do is treat me with the same sneering superiourity that no doubt Apollo fans treat you when you confront them. ...
That attitude is cancerous and you would do well to treat fellow skeptics with some modicum of respect rather than furthering the image of the "asocial conspiracy nut."

So, please explain to us why you believe the non-astronaut NASA missions are not hoaxes while the manned missions are.

[hollycrap]

With the help of the inquisitive mind of icarusinbound , we have been able to establish the proper orientation of the earth seen from the Moon, supposing you are emerging from the far side of the moon in an EQUATORIAL ORBIT.

This is the ONLY orientation possible.




The earth's terminal will not be parallel to the Moon's horizon as the fake apollo eartrise shows. (Only in a short time during the Earth's equinox change -- precession of equinoxes)



Now if you were in a polar orbit the earth would ALWAYS be visible to your RIGHT while moving from the Lunar south pole to the north pole.

I also found this other earth from the moon, purportedly shot in the Apollo 11 mission too. It completely dispels the footage above by the same mission

[Heiwa]

As the Moon always remains steady relative the Earth, i.e. the Moon shows the same side to an observer on the Earth, an observer of the Earth on the Moon should see the Earth steady in the sky all the time = the position of the Earth will not change during, e.g. an alleged Apollo visit of a view days. The height (angle) of the Earth above the Moon horizon is then only a function of the position of the alleged observer on the Moon. The Earth can be at Moon zenith (90°) or just at Moon horizon (0°) just depending where the observer on the Moon happens to be. But there wil never be an Earth rising or setting seen. The observer on the Moon will only see the Earth slowly rotate around itself.
Any observer of the Moon on Earth, e.g. at Houston, has a different problem: the Earth rotates 360° around itself every 24 hrs! It means that 50% of the time the observer on Earth cannot see the Moon at all (as it is on the other side of the Earth, etc, etc).

[hollycrap]

Yes Heiwa that is completely true.

However NASA will allege that his earth rise was not natural, but produced by the command module orbiting the moon while it awaited the other faking nuts below.

So for the sake of argument. we are discarding that the earth could be even seen artificially rising by the command module approaching the rim of the far side, unless the command module was orbiting in an equatorial lunar orbit. And even so we have discarded that the earth's terminal, could be parallel to the moon's horizon.

Further, the picture above also belies the footage, as the earth's terminal is not straight but has been embellished to look more natural.

Another good example is this post I made some time ago (if mods allow me to repost it), showing the same sequence for two different missions

While watching the Apollo 12 galleries, I saw a sequence of images of an earth rise. It seemed very familiar until I realized it was the same sequence as the earth rise for Apollo 14.

I downloaded the images and realized that the earth rise from Apollo 14 in fact were the first 5 frames from the same sequence as the rest attributed to Apollo 12.

Once I had the sequence i played it back and voila .. they fit seamlessly together ... except the earth .. which for me proved the overlay of the earth on The Moon's LOLA model at Langley. Here it is.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ_A4Dmt22M



Anticipating PANs (pro Apollo Nutters) arguments, i found what I could about the "earth rises" and understood they had already wrote baloney to account for the clanger

Here is what I found

AS12-47-6875 to 6895

Earthrise on Rev 14. The Pete and Al will land on this orbit. The distinctive crater in the foreground is Meitner, which has a diameter of 87 km. Journal Contributor Henri Partanen notes that the photos in this sequence are very similar to an Apollo 14 earthrise series that starts with AS14-66-9224. Those photos were also taken at AOS just prior to descent initiation. Because the Apollo 12 and 14 landing sites are both equatorial and are only separated by about 10 degrees of longitude, the orbital planes are similar. A comparison of Celestia images of the Moon as viewed from Earth at the time of the two landings shows that the Moon was in similar libration states. See, also, a labeled version ( 2.7 Mb ) by RenéCantin .

http://0-www.hq.nasa.gov.iii-server.ual ... ges12.html

AS14-66-9224 to 9228

Earthrise from the LM in orbit. The prominent foreground crater is Meitner, which has a diameter of 87 km. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal contributor Henri Partanen notes that the photos in this sequence are very similar to an Apollo 12 earthrise series that starts with AS12-47-6879. Those photos were also taken at AOS just prior to descent initiation. Because the Apollo 12 and 14 landing sites are both equatorial and are only separated by about 10 degrees of longitude, the orbital planes are similar. A quick check of Starry Night shows that the libration states of the Moon were also similar. Consequently, the views at AOS should be much the same. See, also, a labeled version ( 2.7 Mb ) by ALSJ contributor René Cantin.
- Eric M. Jones, Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Apollo 14 photo gallery -

http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Unknown+ ... hotography

I found that both are templates filled in by the same person. Only the first is in a NASA site the second you won't find in a NASA site.

Second Celestia and starry night, mentioned in every other snippet are astronomy software not available until recently so the two legends were written less than a decade ago.

Third that is not a plastic model that is the LOLA Moon plaster of Paris model they modeled at Langley with the help of Disney Studios which cost was more than 2 million dollars of that time.

Fourth the coloration was to avoid the identification of the same clip video frames being passed off as photos, they don't overlap, they are the same sequence of frames in the footage of LOLA before the Moon landing scam took place.


I slowed the sequence a bit, for more clarity



Think, riding on a capsule along the moon should be as bumpy as riding on a country road? The reason for the tawdriness of the photo montages is simple: The jerky way in which they are presented misleads the investigators.

Disclaimer: I had to adjust both sequences to the same contrast/color as they were colorized and contrast manipulated to confuse researchers.

Original published coloration of two frames from the two missions



b&w Adjusted for contrast

[nonhocapito]

Let's look at this picture:


From http://garyosborn.webs.com/theinternaleclipse.htm

It seems to show that the moon orbits the earth not perpendicularly to the earth axis, (which means not along to the earth equator), nor along the ecliptic plane. Instead, it orbits slightly against the earth axis, so to speak.

Yet it seems to me that to allow for this image (or for the GIF) to happen:



we have to imagine that the moon finds itself in the orbit position where it is crossing the earth's equatorial plane (look at the diagram above), which is not impossible. The rest depends on the module position. What am I understanding wrong? (genuine not rhetorical question )

Something like this...?

(not that this makes the pictures in question any less fake, just possibly less stupid, if I am not being stupid myself. These things are hard to grasp correctly just by thinking about them. )

[Heiwa]

Let's look at this picture:



we have to imagine that the moon finds itself in the orbit position where it is crossing the earth's equatorial plane (look at the diagram above), which is not impossible. The rest depends on the module position. What am I understanding wrong? (genuine not rhetorical question )

If the observer/photographer was stationary located on the surface of the Moon, his position is close to one of the Moon poles as the Earth is just one Earth diameter above the Moon horizon.
As the observer/photographer is allegedly spinning around the Moon equator in the Command Module, CM, at high velocity, it is better to turn the photograph 90°, e.g. right so the Moon horizon becomes vertical with the Sun shining on Earth from right. The CM is moving forward over the Moon (equator) and the CM has just come out from the dark/unseen (from Earth) Moon outside and the Earth rises above the CM (and Moon) ... until 90° zenith - and then sets behind the CM as the CM returns to the outside/not seen from Earth side of the Moon again. With the Earth at zenith, you should also be able to see the Sun ... and maybe an eclipse! The closer Earth is much bigger than the far away Sun. Any NASA photos of Earth and Sun on same frame?
It would be interesting to know how many times the CM spun around the Moon while the Lunar Module, LM, was resting down below on the Moon at zero speed. Imagine then the LM starting from zero speed accelerating up to orbit the Moon at same speed as the CM and then docking with the CM (not easy to find!) and then, the combined LM/CM giving gas to kick off from the orbit at exactly the right time to get back in direction Earth, etc, etc. Imagine if they kicked off a little early or late and got off in the wrong direction.

[hollycrap]

@Heywa this takes us back to the clockwork parabolic lift off and perfect docking and hokey pokey swirl of the Apollo 11 LM ascent stage



@nonhocapito My analysis above assumed the Moon rotated with its polar axis parallel to the earth's. I will have to correct myself... later today ....

If anybody could come up with the flowing information it would be nice too.

1) What kind of orbit did Apollo 11's command module follow while orbiting the moon (equatorial or polar)
2) How many days did Apollo 11 purportedly stayed on the Moon's surface.
3) How the earth's terminal should look July 20th of 1969.

[Howie]

I don't know where to start with this one - Armstrongs strange reclusive behaviour is my strongest proof, everything about him says liar.

When I'm reversing into a tight space in the car park I turn the radio down or off as it affects my concentration, if I was docking the LEM with the command module & my life depended on completing this task safely, I would not be playing tape recorders at full volume & singing along to Spirit in the sky.

Unless I was faking it in a tv studio & was getting bored.

My motto is - you can't have it both ways - if a witness tells the opposite story to another witness who sees the same event, one or both have to be lying.

Alan Bean/Gene Cernan described the LEM ascent engines as loud/silent.

Buzz Aldrin says in Astronauts Gone Wild he won't be filmed watching the window fakery trick, if I went to the moon I'd deny it was a fakery, I'd be comfortable with it as I know I'm telling the truth - he knows he's not telling the truth.

[icarusinbound]

Good efforts are being made here to attempt to properly analyse the imagery from first principles...Hollycrap, great adaptation (your gif-making skills are superb). I'm trying to deduce from the mission transcripts whether the CM was claimed to be in equatorial or polar orbit...if anyone finds-out before me, good on you (and noho/Heiwa, keep digging too...I certainly shall)

Meantime, as a response to Howie...I agree, Armstrong's behaviour is always very very odd. He (out of all of the crew) is the one with the most-disturbing 1000-yard stare, and cryptic/fractured comments....he just looks like he's squirming with discomfort, then and now.


http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission ... ollo11.htm

If you haven't skimmed through the trancripts, especially of A11, you should. There are details lurking in there that are stunning. For example, I was amazed to read that the A11 crew are recorded as talking to what's described as "the backup A11 crew", who are personally named in the PAO transcript...Lowell, William Anders and Haise (this by radio during the notional pre-entry return phase, when a number of travelogue soft propaganda broadcasts are made, as above). Anders would have been Armstrong if they'd had to swap the crews, so he was (by some kind of definition)the first man not to (not to?) walk on the moon. Despite the fact that the transcript (and indeed all the audio) can of course all be entirely false it provides a truly-weird counterpoint to the large stock of impossible pictures.

There's such a lot that can be dissected, or attempted to be corrolated, in all of this supposed evidence. So much of the imagery is unquestionably false, but I'm increasingly confused as to *exactly* what was done, and more specifically, exactly who knew what was going on. "Of course", we may all say..."that's precisely the problem"...but what can we conclude from all of this??

In so many ways, this woud have made more sense if we'd unearthed a 'middle way', that somehow they managed to get someone (somehow, safely) up to the moon, and back, then re-staged the whole thing. But it doesn't really look that way either...which to me is making it more of a frightening mystery than it appears at first.

[edit]A vague reference to A11 CM being in a polar orbit..I think?

[/edit]