NASA BUSTED FAKING APOLLO: ACTUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE

American Free Press
Idaho Observer
Barnes Review
Free American
Anti-Shyster
Jubileh
Media ByPass
and many others that you may run across

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

NASA BUSTED FAKING APOLLO: ACTUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE

Post#1 » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:12 pm

Another Sham over the people is getting exposed,
pk

NASA BUSTED FAKING APOLLO: ACTUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... read=67325
Synopsis:
Source: www.rumormillnews.com
Published: March 21, 2005 Author:
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.


NASA BUSTED FAKING APOLLO: ACTUAL VIDEO EVIDENCE

Date: Monday, 21 March 2005, 8:13 a.m.

Actual Film Footage of the One Giant Step Video Being made on the NAsa Film Studio Lot!

WOW!

http://www.msnfound.com/payoff.aspx?cli ... P&owner=Cy

(JULY 20, 1969)
Well, now I guess NASA found Water on the Moon that we can‘t see from Earth. Didn’t NASA say the Moon doesn’t have an
Atmosphere? What about Radiation that Astronauts on a Space Shuttle Mission said they felt 365 miles away from the Van Allen
Belt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwyY2Dz ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpE ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_c3yEXw ... r_embedded - sound track is off
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/1 ... 36686.html
http://www.livevideo.com/video/MadScien ... video.aspx
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=55237875
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/11/1 ... index.html
----------------------------------------------

: http://www.moonmovie.com/15things.html

: The Top 15 Reasons Why No Man Has Ever Set Foot on the Moon:
: 15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at
: the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and
: scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were
: not discovered.

: 14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a
: wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of
: the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

: 13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in
: manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the
: following seven important milestones: First manmade
: satellite in earth orbit…
: First man in space…
: First man to orbit the earth…
: First woman in space…
: The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft…
: The first space walk…
: The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing…
: This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in
: missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

: 12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the
: moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject.
: "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies."
: Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted
: an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to
: anyone. See streaming video: "Buzz says, "Buzz
: Off!"

: 11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously
: released versions. Why would they be updating
: thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?

: With Prop ID "C"
: After: "C" Removed

: 10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing
: in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense
: air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their
: lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems
: in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the
: load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity,
: otherwise they might have fallen over. See streaming video:
: "Flag blowing in the wind."

: 9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000
: lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed.
: During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle
: falling into the hole the engine created as it descended.
: An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for
: all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the
: effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the
: wind - see # 10!)

: 8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's
: surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet
: they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each
: other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight
: would cast shadows that would never intersect. See our
: streaming video: "Photographic Analysis" for some
: eye opening examples.

: 7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never
: gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo
: astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond
: low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get
: to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen
: belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen
: radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field
: traps the solar wind. See streaming video: "Radiation
: Belts."

: 6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the
: moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts
: aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with
: the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design
: and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely
: ludicrous.

: 5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module
: would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side
: where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected
: the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some
: Apollo missions.

: 4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from
: lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical
: shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust
: engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to
: think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the
: lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is
: absurd.

: 3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin
: gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered
: seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who
: was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a
: wrong answer to a question he should not have been
: answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my
: documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the
: circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having
: traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then
: and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is
: even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if
: you obtain a written transcript of the press conference
: you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to
: Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

: 2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch
: pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the
: entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle
: no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were
: supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could
: they have made such a large improvement in "quality
: control" in such a short period of time.

: 1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the
: duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled,
: unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows
: the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being
: half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary,
: proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see
: this anywhere else!

: ©2001 AFTH, LLC

poker face http://www.pokerface.com

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Part 2 of tMOON Haux Stanley Kubriks participation & fil

Post#2 » Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:50 am

for high band width users check out this 40 minute film about Kubriks filming of the NASA moon lies.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1829859642

enjoy
pk

PS - This post has taken a lot of hits.
Where are you all coming from
can someone reading this thread
send an email to
pokerface@pokerface.com
and shoot us the url you are coming from
thanks
management
pk http://www.pokerface.com

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Here's what our viewers are saying…

Post#3 » Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:51 pm

http://www.moonmovie.com/viewercomments.html

"Mr Sibrel - I purchased a DVD of your documentary. Very well done! I really enjoyed it. I told friends and family about it, and they basically thought I had gone nuts. So I invited them to watch it for themselves. 10 out of the 11 people that initially thought I was nuts are now convinced that mankind has not yet, and may never step foot on the moon. Thanks for your courage and determination to get this work out there." Tony

"NASA has admitted in 2002 that it cannot adequately protect the astronauts working in the International Space Station from radiation, yet it was able to do so with our lunar adventurers in flimsy Apollo modules back in 1969? Ridiculous. I absolutely enjoyed your documentary, and Buzz Aldrin simply punched you because he had no other recourse: you uncovered the truth." Michael (IN)

"I just saw the presentation of your documentary in one of my writing classes where we were discussing the difference between opinion and belief. In my entire educational experience I have never seen a more convincing piece of evidence, which disregards the American pride of being the first to land on the moon. And I agree that many of our beliefs are false as we need a scientific approach to prove our them. Spread the word. The world ought to know the truth!" Angad (CA)

"I don't think they ever went to the moon! I watched your video today and there is no way around the footage. It's obvious." Mindy

"I was watching Jay Leno last night, and what did I see? You getting decked by Buzz Aldrin for apparently asking him to tell the truth. That seals it for me. There is no way we landed on the moon." Eric (NH)

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" was one of the best movies I have ever seen, and changed my perspective on the world as I once knew it! Thank you!" JEREMY(NY)

"Bart, What an excellent job you did with this movie. Even the biggest skeptics do not have an answer to the footage you uncovered from NASA. All I can say is, Wow! It certainly leaves no doubt in my mind that the Apollo missions never made it out of earth's orbit." Rick (MO)

"I don't believe we ever went. Some think Apollo 11 was the only fake one but I think they all were…The thing that sells yours is the filming of Earth from the capsule, the reflection in the window. If this is really authentic (and I believe it is) then what else can they say? Also, when you watch Armstrong's reaction to Collins at the interview following that segment, you can see he is stressed and ashamed, and Aldrin is in a perpetual haze. Collins, what a liar, and Armstrong...the guy almost broke his neck when you turned to look at Collins, he obviously wanted to say "SHUT THE **** UP, MAN!" Am I the only one seeing this?…Thanks for the great DVD!" zuma____@___.com

"Outstanding! I work with a former employee of NASA and he told me all the same things that the movie did and he didn't even know about it! Thank you for taking the risk to wake-up the sheeple! In Christ's name, keep up the good work!" warrior____@_____.com

"I purchased your video some time ago and have shown it to quite a few family and friends - the majority of whom now believe that Man never landed on the moon…Here in Ireland, we have had numerous tribunals into political sleaze and corruption and it seems to me that the truth about this should come out. What do the American politicians have to say about this? Also, I hear that the Japanese are planning an unmanned trip in 2004, will this prove that they didn't do it? Best regards and continued success with your video." Matthew (Ireland)

"I've been telling people since 1986 that there is no possible way that they could have gone to the moon. Your research will prove my years of talking to really be the truth. I have the tape and I am not shocked, but relieved that the truth is no longer covered. Thank you guys for such powerful material. It's a must-have for all races, the kids must know the truth." Corey (MO)

"Excellent film. I found it extremely timely. I teach a course in Canada called "history's mysteries". Used this film along with NASA's great achievements in American space exploration as points of discussion. My students loved it." EV (CANADA)

"I have never used an educational tool with the sheer impact of your documentary… After watching it in class last Monday, my students looked like stunned fish. First they were speechless, then they couldn't stop talking. I am using your film in my college classroom to teach students basic principles of proof, refutation, and examining the foundations of their own beliefs. Frankly, I have never had such an effective teaching tool for thawing intellectual inertia among students…" Doug (CA)

"I just finished watching the video and all I can say is… Fantastic! Shocking. This video has confirmed many of my thoughts on American events from the 1960's to the current. I cannot stress how important this film is. Especially in the light of 9/11. One can easily draw several parallels. War, power, greed, corruption and deception. This is a great documentary and entertaining to boot. I will recommend your film to friends…" Randall (CT)

"There's only one way I can describe my reaction after seeing this documentary, "Shocked." I was born in 1972, the supposed "last time men went to the moon", so I wasn't around to see Apollo 11. If this documentary can get to me, imagine what effect it must have on those who were around to see the event take place as it "happened"? Everyone should see this film, no matter how painful it may be." Donovan (PA)

"…Excellent video. As a professional photographer, I see that the evidence is clear that the photographs have numerous technical errors. I am convinced these photos are staged as anyone with minimal experience in photography will quickly see. The footage of them staging this fake event actually coming from NASA leaves no question the moon landing was a fraud. Another unsolved mystery solved." J.D. (IL)

"Fantastic, great! Thank you and may God bless your efforts…." Terry (GA)

"Excellent documentary. Stunning. Even my grandparents were speechless. The video of the crew faking the shot out of the window sealed the coffin shut as far as our opinions are concerned. Neil Armstrong and the rest of the crew are nothing but liars and tricksters and that's how history WILL end up remembering them. This evidence is far too damaging to go unnoticed." Rich (CA)

"I thought this movie was outstanding! I saw it at a friend's house and I want to buy a VHS copy… it is about time the truth came out and that people start to see the truth about what our government is capable of! God Bless!" warrior_@___.com

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon was a thought-provoking, superlatively made documentary. I have to admit, the evidence submitted for a moon landing hoax is more than enough to make you think." Marvin_@___.com

"I purchased 2 each of your videos. Extremely revealing…" Richard (CA)

"I have seen this film and I believe every word." Pat (MD)

"Great work you all. Really, I mean it. This film is outstanding… You guys deserve the absolute highest recognition in this area. Thanks so much for working to make this, it is worth so much more than you are charging." Brad (TX)

pk http://www.pokerface.com

hangman
Acolyte
Posts: 1087

Post#4 » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:37 pm

Just want to interject something in all of this. When the event supposedly happened, I was 15 years old washing potatoes in the kitchen of Bonanza Steak House. The whole world stood still as the landing and climbing down the ladder was broadcast world-wide. That, in itself, was an amazing feat. Now, maybe we know why it had to be shown to all people. Sorta on the same line of the staged 9/11 terror attacks. And, listen up, for the same reason. Mind control of the planet. But, as in the JFK murder, the evil ones will never relent from their propaganda tactics.

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

Post#5 » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:36 am

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon ::: Was The Apollo Moon Landing A Hoax?


http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0035.htm
Source: www.conspiracyworld.com
Published: February 11, 2005 Author: by Bart Sibrel
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.


A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

by Bart Sibrel

Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to write a response to Michael Medved's recent USA Today article in which he suggests that anyone who holds an opinion that the United States' lunar landings of the late 1960's and early 1970's were falsified for strategic benefit must be completely insane or mentally deficient. I, Bart Winfield Sibrel, am the writer, producer and director of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, the documentary which inspired the recent Fox special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, for which I served as senior consultant and key interviewee.

Suggesting that the greatest event in human history was staged as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into a reserved nuclear posture, is, on the surface, seemingly preposterous. However, I, not Mr. Medved, have spent half a decade and $500,000 on research into just the possibility, as remote as it may be, that the boastful goal of a non-engineer politician in 1961 (John Kennedy) to "put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (December 31, 1969)" was a bite too large to chew.

After all, two decades later, with much improved and superior technology to that of 1969, a mission only 1/100th as complicated, the Earth orbit of a telescope (Hubble), was nearly as many years behind schedule as the entire duration of the lunar landing goal, and then, after its sixth launch attempt, didn't even work when it arrived at its destination which is 1/1000th the distance to the moon. In addition, it took another two years to make the necessary repairs to get it operational. Even today, an unmanned probe (to Mars), the size of a large toaster, requires nearly ten years to develop. Mr. Medved, where is the logic in this?

Unfortunately, Mr. Medved composed his article without even reviewing my film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon which contains newly discovered, unprecedented evidence consisting of a previously unseen, mislabeled, 31-year old unedited reel of footage from the first mission to the moon, Apollo 11, dated three days into the flight. In this footage Neil Armstrong himself is clearly visible staging part of the mission photography. Before I uncovered this mislabeled lost footage, and after three and a half years of research, I estimated the possibility of a government fraud of the lunar landings to be about 25%. After viewing this footage: 100%.

It is a fact. Humankind has not stepped foot on the moon. End of story. Proof of this is in my film. This whole endeavor really pushes people's buttons when it come to national pride. That is why I open my controversial documentary with a Renaissance painting of the Tower of Babel and a Biblical quote, "When pride cometh, then cometh shame" (Proverbs 11:2). Rivalry among nations began with which civilization could build the tallest building. Sound familiar? I then show the Titanic and the quote, "The Ship that God Himself could not sink!" Finally, I quote Nixon referring to Apollo 11's landing on the moon as the greatest event since creation.

When the USA Today writer refers to the crewmembers he doesn't even know as "brave astronauts" he clearly discloses his environmentally conditioned prejudice toward viewing this topic without any objectivity. If questioning the integrity of our government is so unpatriotic in his mind, he is forgetting that this is precisely how our nation was founded, questioning the ethics and motives of mother England. George Washington, the "Father" of our country, considered it a disgrace to his office to lie about the complete depravity of the condition of his army's morale, competence, resources and numbers against the attacking British army. He refused to "white wash" his dispatches to Congress in order to boost their pride or spirits. This kind of leadership, "I cannot tell a lie," is sorely missed in our government.

Furthermore, I can only assume Mr. Medved was referring to me as the "utterly uncredentialed investigative journalist." Funny, isn't it, that those making such accusations about such emotionally provocative topics are often guilty of the very charges they unthoughtfully assert against others. Had he done his research before writing the article (I spent 5 years on this subject, interviewing hundreds of sources), he would have discovered that the "uncredentialed" affiliation I had at the time of the commencement of my investigative journalist's research was none other than NBC News.

A little further investigation on Mr. Medved's part would have discovered that the NASA spokesperson on the program, Brian Welsh, definitely agreed with him in that he felt that his performance of impatient dismissive generalizations did not seem very convincing; rather, a point-for-point rebuttal would have been more appropriate. Apparently, in an effort to be better prepared in the future, Brian Welsh did his own off-the-record investigation with the special access privileges attack in November 2000 at age 42.

When Fox pointed out that eleven Apollo astronauts all had non-space related fatal accidents within a twenty-two month period of one another, he failed to mention that the odds of this happening were 1 in 10,000. Oddly enough, these were the same odds given to a successful manned moon landing on its first attempt by a senior space program employee in the mid-1960's. Nevertheless, Mr. Medved does raise some very good questions that should be addressed. The first is, "why did the Russians not blow the whistle on such a fraud?"

Because I strongly believe that the chief motive for the cover-up was to fool the Soviet Union into thinking that the US had superior missile technology that did not really exist, we need to understand how urgent and unprecedented a motive this was, note past occasions of now disclosed United States misinformation, analyze whether or not the Soviets had the capability to uncover it, and, if they did, question whether or not they would really broadcast this finding to the world. It is important to note, that at the dawn of the space race never before in human history had two "superpowers" each possessed the intercontinental nuclear missile capability of annihilating the other several times over from a location half way around the world.

Perhaps a reminder is in order as well to mention the fact that during this period the Russians launched the first artificial satellite, the first human in space, the first human to orbit the Earth, the first space walk, the first woman in space, the first crew of three into space, and the first of two simultaneously orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing. For every twenty hours the US had spent in space at the time the Soviets had spent one hundred. Five times the experience and expertise!

In 1994, our own government's watchdog agency, the General Accounting Office, reported, "The Star Wars Missile Defense System rigged tests to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The aim was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the Cold War." How much more so was there the need in 1969 when there was genuine concern that "Sputnik 3" might have nuclear missiles on it for a first strike that would put the weapons within less than ten minutes from major targets in America? Furthermore, if the Soviets discovered the cover-up, at that time or years later, would it really be in their best interest to announce their finding to the world and thereby further escalate the tension between the superpowers? Better in my opinion, to hold on to such a juicy morsel and use it year after year to blackmail each succeeding US administration.

Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission ( a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

For the USA Today writer to equate believing in this cover-up with denying the Jewish holocaust of World War II simply proves the superficiality of his investigation caused by his misdirected patriotism, or as it has been historically noted, "Zeal without knowledge." Were there only three witnesses to World War II? Of course not, yet this is the total number of witnesses to landing on the moon in 1969. Never before in history had such an historic event been without independent press coverage. Whatever sound and pictures were distributed to the public were strictly controlled and previewed by the Federal Government.

Could a fuzzy black-and-white television image be used to fool the public? Let's look at history. In the mid 1950's Time Magazine had on its cover " The Smartest Man in America" who was the latest winner on the popular TV game show The Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question. It was later proven in a court of law that the man knew the answers in advance. Time Magazine was wrong! They were fooled just like the rest of us. In fact, in the Grand Jury investigation, it was later proven that one hundred twenty people who swore to God that they were telling the truth at the start of the investigation, in fact, lied to the Grand Jury!

What about Apollo 13? When America allegedly put humans on the moon for the second time (Apollo 12), several TV viewers telephoned the networks and complained that reruns of I Love Lucy were being interrupted. What a coincidence that the very next mission to the moon involved "life and death" jeopardy. Peoples' interest in return trips to the moon was rekindled!

What about the moon rocks? The Soviet Union never sent a manned mission to the moon, yet they have moon rocks. How did they get them? By unmanned probes and meteorites! The only time in history that an astronaut, Soviet or American, is said to have left the relative safety of Earth orbit and ventured through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, a twenty-five thousand mile thick band of intense radiation which surrounds the Earth beginning at an altitude of about one thousand miles, is going to the moon. The Soviets, with a five-to-one advantage in the early part of the space race, never once sent a human through the radiation belts to even orbit the moon.

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure an hour and a half of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminum shielding!

After this new generation of NASA astronauts encountered this unpredicted surprise, CNN (another "uncredentialed" source) issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health.

It isn't an "utterly uncredentialed journalist" who is asserting that the Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967 that killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the moon. It is the dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, and who has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions), who is making this accusation. Mr. Medved, have you personally retrieved evidence from the space capsule to support your theory that this credible first hand assertion is unfounded?

Anyone with the slightest open mind and truly objective thinking can conclude that when the assassin of President Kennedy was assassinated himself three days later, that something was awry. The moon landings cover-up is even grander, yet, obviously, not the first, and it is certainly not the first time, or the last, that the press at large was completely wrong.

I sent a copy of this lost footage to every United States Senator and Congress Member (five hundred thirty-five), plus the president and the current director of the General Accounting Office. I have heard back from only four. In my letter I challenge them to summon Neil Armstrong himself to testify, under oath, whether or not he actually set foot on the moon in 1969. I caution them to get ready for the shock of their life. Oddly enough, in the thirty plus years since the event, Neil Armstrong has not granted, not even once, an on camera or independent print interview. Not to CNN, not to NBC, not to CBS, not to ABC, not to Time, Life or Newsweek. It is my conviction that he refuses to be interviewed because he does not want to lie. How does the lyric go? "Ask me no question, and I'll tell you no lies."

Recently, however, I had the good fortune to show this falsified mission footage to Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Neil Armstrong's fellow crewmate. Quite startled and angry, he was most interested in how I attained this lost footage. He also threatened to sue me if I showed it publicly. Why? Because it is meaningless? If Mr. Medved is courageous, why not challenge me to a duel of the wits on his radio show for an open debate on this subject?

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Check this link out cool flash piece...

Post#6 » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:37 am

Someone had waaaaay too much time on their hands
still some of its pretty funny.

http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Heres someone trying to debunk Sibrels work

Post#7 » Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:40 am

I would love to see Sibrel comments on this shills effort.
pk

http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html
BIBLIOGRAPHY
bart sibrel's top fifteen
Home page
Conspiracy
Photography
Environment
Technology
Vehicles
Bibliography


This is a review of the top fifteen reasons Bart Sibrel believes support his contention that the lunar landings were falsified.
"Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes, and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.
Fig. 1 -Richard M. Nixon, 37th President of the United States. (The White House)
While Richard Nixon was the president during the first successful landing in July 1969, he was not the president when most of the work was being done. In fact, Nixon himself didn't much care for the Apollo program or the space program in general. He considered the U.S. space program to be the brainchild of his arch-enemies John F. Kennedy and Kennedy's successor Lyndon Johnson. He interpreted the success and public acclaim of the space program as approval for the outgoing Democratic leadership.

Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th U.S. president on January 20, 1969. Apollo 8, the first mission to venture through the Van Allen belts Sibrel says are so deadly, was launched on December 21, 1968, a month before Nixon took power. But the designs for the spacecraft and the plans for the mission were finalized long before this time, during Johnson's presidency. Sibrel is going after the wrong president.

Nixon, it could be argued, was not very good at cover-up: he got caught. People who are very good at deception don't get caught. The famous Watergate scandal is nothing more than a simple burglary of the type perpetrated on a daily basis by relatively unskilled people in the U.S. Nixon couldn't pull it off or keep it secret. In any case Sibrel has evidently chosen Nixon because of his proven record of concealment and shady dealings, not because Nixon was in a historical position to have had much of an affect on Apollo.
A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful, pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the citizens of America over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.

True, but not a reason for a hoax. After all, a successful Apollo mission might have achieved these same goals. There was no need to fake Apollo just to improve morale. Although the landings themselves took place after the 1968 Tet Offensive, which turned the tide of the war against the U.S., the plans for the landing were drawn up beginning in 1961, when the war wasn't as great a cause for social concern. To characterize the Apollo program as a reactionary response to the failing war in Vietnam is to put the cart before the horse.

The people who criticized the Vietnam War (and, according to Sibrel, needed cheering up) also criticized the moon landings. The people who supported the troops overseas (and didn't need cheering up) supported the moon landings.
The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were the first in achieving the following seven important milestones:
1. First manmade satellite in orbit.
2. First man in space.
3. First man to orbit the earth.
4. First woman in space.
5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft.
6. The first spacewalk.
7. The first of two orbiting spacecraft rendezvousing.
This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.

See here. The ability to set records does not necessarily equate to technological supremacy.
Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.

It is not true that the Apollo astronauts refuse to give interviews to anybody. They typically refuse to give interviews to conspiracy theorists. Most of the Apollo astronauts know who Bart Sibrel is and how he makes his living, and most avoid him whenever possible. This is why Mr. Sibrel has had to resort to "ambush" and other deceptive tactics such as posing as a crew from Discovery Channel in order to get on-camera comments from astronauts.

Collins has written several best-selling books on his experiences as an astronaut, and has lectured extensively. He is one of the more entertaining astronauts. But he understandably does not consent to interviews from conspiracists.

Despite his age and poor health, Aldrin still makes many personal and television appearances. He very much likes talking about his experiences. But he does not like being called a liar in public, which is what he knew Sibrel planned to do. Whether Aldrin would have had the legal right to sue is debatable. But his sentiment is certainly understandable.

Armstrong gives interviews, but prefers not to appear on camera. He's shy. Everyone who knew him as an obscure test pilot testifies that he preferred keeping to himself. The statement in quotes, "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies," is not a quote from Armstrong; it's a statement by Sibrel fishing for a less obvious reason why Armstrong refuses to talk to him. For Sibrel to place his own comments in quotes like that, implying that Armstrong said it, is very misleading.

He gives press conferences. He spoke one-on-one on camera with Patrick Moore, host of the BBC program The Sky At Night, in 1970. He hosted an American television documentary called Man On the Moon. And he has been interviewed extensively for the online Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Clearly Armstrong is not hiding from "difficult" questions.

We understand Sibrel's feelings toward Armstrong. Armstrong is likely the reason Sibrel was fired from his job as a cameraman for a Nashville, Tenn., television station. Sibrel was arrested for trespassing on Armstrong's property after Armstrong refused to grant him an interview. We suspect, but cannot prove, that Sibrel has an axe to grind.
Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released version. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?
Fig. 2 -Detail of a photograph in which a "C" appears to be written on a rock. (NASA: AS16-107-17446)
Mr. Sibrel is speaking of the infamous C-rock photo (Fig. 2). He has absolutely no evidence that the photo has been recently retouched. That's simply his interpretation of the fact that two different versions of the photo exist: with and without the mark.

The peculiar C-shaped mark on the rock has been conclusively traced to its source: a fiber contaminant on a particular print of this photo. The original transparency does not contain the mark. The masters do not contain the mark. The prints (save one) do not contain the mark. The mark exists on one print, and one print only.

It is unfortunate that this one print was digitized and as a result became the one most widely circulated. But Sibrel's contention that this photo was retouched to remove supposed evidence of prop markings is completely unfounded. Sibrel is trying to make the observation fit his predetermined conclusion. There is plenty of evidence of other fibrous contamination on the prints. You simply cannot handle and store tens of thousands of photographs without getting specks of dust on a few of them. The effort to clean them when dirty is evidence of preserving the record intact, not evidence of falsifying it.
Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over.

Sibrel makes a big deal about having discovered "rare footage" and "uncirculated photographs". Everything he cites except for a few clips in his video has been a part of the public record for thirty years. He's trying to impress us with his ability to point and click through NASA web sites. If he were really so resourceful we'd expect him to have discovered the other prints of the C-rock photo -- the ones that have been around for thirty years and don't have the "C" on them.

The astronauts trained with a PLSS (backpack) mockup that simulated what the real PLSS would weigh on the moon. And when they worked with this equipment, a separate van-sized cooling unit was required to provide them with fresh, cool air. The mockup backpacks did not function. They did not contain any actual cooling units, as the real ones would. The real cooling units would only work in a perfect vacuum. Yes, the real backpacks were quite heavy, and also quite useless on earth.

The fluttering flag argument is an old one. Sibrel's "lost footage" isn't any different from the footage we've been seeing since 1969 -- the flag doesn't "blow in the wind", it moves in response to the astronauts' manipulation of the staff.
Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 pound thrust engine showing the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind!)

As a matter of fact the photos most certainly do not show "undisturbed" soil. Up close we can see that directly under the nozzle the soil has been blasted away to reveal the underlying hardpack. Photographs taken from a distance and from orbit show the more subtle effect of the exhaust plume -- a lightening of the soil.

The lunar module was never tested on earth. It couldn't have been. Its engine was too weak to lift the spacecraft against earth gravity, and elements of the lunar module's structure could not support themselves under a full flight load in earth gravity. The only way to test the LM on earth would be to test a heavily modified version of it, which would not be a useful test.

Before anything had landed on the moon there was some concern that the engine would dig a large hole, but this is when scientists believed the moon might be covered by a very thick layer of fluffy dust. But after the Surveyor spacecraft had made several successful landings and proved the solidity of the lunar surface there was no special concern for the Apollo spacecraft.

A complete discussion of this topic is here.

Sibrel's "rare, uncirculated photos" have been available since the 1970s. His "exclusive" film footage is available (unedited) from various sources.
Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.

Again, the photos in question are not rare. Nor are they uncirculated. They've been available from NASA and from the Lunar and Planetary Institute since the early 1970s, and online in digital form beginning in the mid 1980s.

Sibrel's examples of "impossible" shadows have been easily reproduced by photographers taking pictures of sun-cast shadows. The laws of perspective provide that lines which are truly parallel need not always appear parallel in photographs.
The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.

The Van Allen belts are discussed here. Sibrel isn't comfortable discussing the details of Van Allen radiation, but that doesn't stop us. And as a matter of fact, Geminis 10 and 11 entered the Van Allen belts long before Apollo.

If it's raining outside you dress warmly and take an umbrella, otherwise you dress conveniently. The space shuttle is designed for low earth orbit. The Apollo command module was designed to pass through the Van Allen belts. It is a matter of intent. Now it's important to remember that the Apollo spacecraft went through the Van Allen belts. That's a single brief exposure -- and one on the way back. Orbiting within the Van Allen belts exposes the occupants continuously to radiation. Even if the radiation is less intense, it's still more dangerous to have a small continuous dose than to have a single large dose.

Mr. Sibrel neglects to mention what he told the audience of Coast To Coast AM with George Noory on Jan. 6, 2003 when first making this claim. See here for details: Mr. Sibrel has unwittingly admitted that Apollo astronauts likely did pass through the Van Allen belts!

Further, Mr. Sibrel's film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon says the Van Allen belts start at 1,000 miles, not 400 miles. Which is it?
The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. The fuel tanks were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit.

To put it mildly, this argument is ignorant in the extreme. Except to call it an argument would be a compliment. It's mostly Mr. Sibrel horse-laughing.

First, Mr. Sibrel is a video cameraman by profession. His opinion of what makes a spaceworthy vehicle is irrelevant unless he can show where he took night courses in aeronautical engineering. Qualified engineers don't have a problem accepting the lunar module as a probable device. In fact, NASA and Grumman both publish very detailed specifications on the lunar module to allow anyone with the technical expertise to verify its operation.

To argue that the lunar module should have needed one-sixth the fuel of the space shuttle is to completely misunderstand how fuel requirements for space vehicles work.

First, the lunar module and the space shuttle use entirely different kinds of fuel. The shuttle's fuel is cryogenic -- gas compressed into a liquid form to take up less space. (The mass remains the same, however.) The lunar module's fuel is naturally a liquid at room temperature. For example, the helium tank at the party store looks like it contains only a few gallons. But it will fill up several thousand ballons amounting to a huge volume. Cryogenic rocket fuel is compressed even more densely than party helium.

Second, the space shuttle weighs more. The orbiter alone in earth gravity weighs approximately 200,000 lbs (91,000 kg). The lunar module ascent stage -- with astronauts -- weighs only about 2,000 lbs (910 kg) in lunar gravity. That's a thousand-fold difference in weight. (Not in mass, however.)

Third, there isn't a such a simple relationship between the fuel requirement and payload mass. Let's say you have a payload with a mass of 1,000 kg. You add 10 kilograms to it. That means you have to supply the rocket with more fuel to get that heavier payload to a given altitude. But wait! The fuel you just added is more mass in the vehicle that has to be lifted to orbit. So you have to add more fuel to lift the fuel you added to lift the heavier payload. So it's not true that adding 10% to the payload simply requires 10% more fuel. Adding 10 kg of mass to the payload can easily require 200 kg or more in additional fuel.

Fourth, the earth has an atmosphere. The space shuttle has to push upward through that atmosphere, which requires extra force to overcome the atmospheric drag. And that drag is considerable: it increases according to the square of the velocity. That force has to come from extra fuel. If there's no atmospheric drag, there's no need to provide fuel to overcome it.

The atmosphere also provides an additional impediment. In order to orbit the earth, you have to get outside the atmosphere. Theoretically you could orbit the earth at an altitude of 60 miles (96 km), but there's still air there, and at the speed you would need to travel at to maintain orbit, the atmospheric drag would be enough to slow you down very quickly. So the space shuttle must orbit at altitudes nearing 150 miles (240 km) where the air is thin enough to be negligible for a few weeks. But the moon has no air. You can orbit the moon at a much lower altitude -- just high enough to clear the mountains. Lower altitude means less fuel.
The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees F on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?

This is suspiciously like Ralph Rene's estimate. Either way, it reveals a mind-boggling ignorance of thermodynamics.

Objects in the sun will definitely heat up, and without an atmosphere to help draw away the heat, the typical object will heat up more in a vacuum -- on its sunny side.

Any object placed in the sun will be half lit and half shaded. Unless the object is very small -- say a quarter-inch (half a centimeter) in size -- the temperature won't be the same all over its surface, or even inside of it. The sunny side will be much hotter than the shady side. This is easy to determine even on earth. Thus to say that the "landing module" would reach one temperature all over is amusingly naive.

Since Mr. Sibrel doesn't tell us how he arrived at his figure, we can't tell whether his claim is defensible or not. But if he's cribbing from Rene, as we suspect, then we can find lots of fault with it.

Rene just guesses at the all-important values for emissivity and absorptivity. In a naive interpretation of Kirchhoff's Law, he uses the same number for both and assumes this totally fabricated (by his own admission) number is the same for all the materials used in the LM.

The other extremely important factor in radiant heat transfer is the angle with which light strikes the surface. Light that strikes perpendicular transmits maximum energy, which light that strikes at a sharp angle transmits very little. Rene doesn't even talk about this in his computation. In practice, radiant heat transfer analysis is done by creating a geometric model in a computer and iterating the heat transfer to account for these angles and interreflection. This was actually done in the 1960s for the lunar module. Rene simply solves one equation once and believes this is a suitable estimate.

And so, apparently, does Mr. Sibrel. In fact, anyone with any understanding of heat transfer just shakes his head in amazement at the incredibly wrong pseudoscience behind this argument.
Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on earth, is absurd.

Again Mr. Sibrel, the video cameraman, professes to be able to judge the stability and spaceworthiness of a vehicle simply by looking at pictures of it.

As we discuss here, the lunar module is actually a very inherently stable design. Mr. Sibrel's opinion is based on uninformed inspection. An analysis according to basic principles of physics confirms the stability of the craft.

Mr. Sibrel gives no argument to support his assertion that the lunar module had a high center of gravity. In fact, in both the ascent and descent stages, the fuel tanks (the heaviest parts) are as low as possible in the chassis. This is a great improvement over cylindrical rocket boosters whose shape is dictated by aerodynamics.

Similarly there is no support for his argument of "one big thrust" engine at the bottom. Which is to say, there is certainly one main engine in both the ascent and descent stages, but in neither case is it simply attached to the bottom. In both the ascent and descent stages it is actually raised as high as possible in the structure. The descent motor is actually up inside the descent stage. And it could be gimballed.

As a matter of physical analysis, the lunar module design is considerably more stable than a typical booster even today. Mr. Sibrel's assertion otherwise is wishful thinking.

As we note here, the LLRV piloted by Neil Armstrong crashed in May 1968, not "three weeks" before the lunar landing in July 1969. It crashed not because it was unstable, but because it broke.
After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of the clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?

Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

QUERY: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN [actually Collins]: I don't remember seeing any.

(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)

Fig. 3 - One of several photographs of the solar corona taken by Michael Collins and other Apollo 11 astronauts while en route to the moon. (NASA: AS11-42-6179)

Collins' response is a followup to Armstrong's reference to solar corona photography (Fig. 3) which had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39). The reporter's question is a bit confusing since the solar corona cannot be seen from the lunar surface except when the earth eclipses the sun. Or, of course, from a spaceship positioned such that the earth is between the spaceship and the sun. Apollo 11's course provided just such an opportunity. It appears Neil Armstrong interpreted the reporter's phrase "solar corona" to refer to this data.
In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time?"

"Entire Apollo program in shambles" is quite an exaggeration. The Thompson commission (NASA) and the Senate and House committees did not investigate the whole program. They concentrated on problems with the Apollo command module. However, all agree that the program was proceeding an at unsafe speed.

The Apollo 1 fire occurred during a test. Investigators found that while NASA had taken adequate precautions against fire for the actual flight, they had not paid enough attention to the test conditions, which were quite hazardous. They made assumptions that were not defensible in hindsight. So many of the corrections were simply changes in test procedure. The flight procedures were still safe.

When Apollo flights resumed, they were in the next-generation of spacecraft that were already under construction at the time of the fire and which had already incorporated improvements. Revisions that were suggested by the review committees (simplified doors, safer oxygen atmosphere, etc.) were added to these designs.

NASA told its contractors to move all the fire-related corrections to the top of the priority list. No extraneous work would be done until the design changes were implemented to make the spacecraft safe from fire.

Mr. Sibrel doesn't have any special training or understanding of spacecraft design and construction, so his opinion that two years is not long enough to correct Apollo 1's problems is not especially valuable. This is perhaps why he must exaggerate the scope and gravity of the findings of the various investigative boards. He must make the problems seem very serious and widespread so that the short recovery period is suspicious.
All Apollo missions stayed in low earth orbit for the duration of the trip. WE uncovered some mislabeled., unedited, behind the scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in our documentary, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. You won't see this anywhere else!

Mr. Sibrel has no actual evidence that the Apollo spacecraft stayed in low earth orbit the whole time, nor can he explain how it was able to go for two weeks without being spotted in the night sky. It would have been the brightest object in the sky next to the moon and Venus. And it would have been moving so fast that it would have transited the night sky in about three minutes. Bright, fast-moving objects in the sky attract attention. Mr. Sibrel argue that billions of people over six missions lasting more than a week each failed to see it.

What Mr. Sibrel supplies is footage of the astronauts practicing for an upcoming telecast. Because television was added at the last minute, they hadn't had time to practice much with the equipment. So they were experimenting with different camera positions and exposure settings. Someone on the ground recorded it. Mr. Sibrel notes several observations which he can't explain in terms of his expectations, therefore he concludes the astronauts "must" have been faking it. That's it. That's his "smoking gun."

And it's not true that you can only see the footage by ordering Mr. Sibrel's video. It is available -- unedited and without Mr. Sibrel's "interpretive" voice-over -- on the Apollo 11 DVD set from Spacecraft Films. Mr. Sibrel allows you to see only bits and pieces of this evidence which he considers so important.

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Moon shot or not?

Post#8 » Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:06 am

Moon shot or not?
http://www.tennessean.com/entertainment ... 6514.shtml


By KEVIN NANCE
Staff Writer

Nashville filmmaker continues to challenge landing with new movie

Like most American youth, Bart Sibrel grew up convinced that the Apollo space missions to the moon were humanity's greatest technological achievement. The son of an Air Force veteran, he idolized the astronauts, so much so that the walls of his bedroom in Bellevue were covered with posters of them walking on the lunar surface.

Now Sibrel, a Nashville filmmaker, says the moon landings were a gigantic and ruinously expensive Cold War hoax perpetrated by the United States government to fool the Soviet Union into believing it had lost the space race.

''They didn't go to the moon,'' he declares. ''I'd bet my life on it.''

To prove his controversial theory, Sibrel has spent much of the past decade working on two films, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and Astronauts Gone Wild, the second of which premieres next week at Belcourt Theatre as the kickoff of a projected national tour of college campuses.

Along the way, Sibrel, 39, has become perhaps the world's most visible and doggedly aggressive moon-landing conspiracy theorist. Astronauts Gone Wild documents his relentless pursuit of the Apollo astronauts, each of whom he ambushes with a challenge to swear on a Bible, ''on penalty of eternal damnation,'' that he walked on the moon.

Some of the men comply, if reluctantly and angrily; others refuse. The most eminent refuser is Neil Armstrong, famous as the first man to walk on the moon, who says: ''Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that's probably a fake Bible.''

''If I walked on the moon, I would think that anyone who thought otherwise was hysterically funny,'' Sibrel says now.

''I'd say, 'Bring me a stack of Bibles.' But he didn't.''

Elsewhere in Astronauts Gone Wild, an initially welcoming Edgar Mitchell orders Sibrel out of his house, growing so angry that he kicks Sibrel in the rear end on the way out.

''If you continue this,'' Mitchell fumes, ''I will personally take you to court.''

''I hope that you do,'' Sibrel responds. ''I invite you to.''

And in a sequence that made national headlines when it happened in 2002, Edwin ''Buzz'' Aldrin punches Sibrel in the face after being confronted outside a hotel. ''You're a coward, a liar and a thief!'' Sibrel yells, and pow!

A smoking gun?

Born in Dayton, Ohio — which, he now notes with a certain irony, also is the hometown of the Wright Brothers and Neil Armstrong — Sibrel moved to Nashville with his family when he was 12.

Two years later, he became interested in the theater, making his stage debut as an actor in The Robber Bridegroom at Circle Players and going on to perform in more than 20 local productions over the years.

Eventually he began to write plays and then to film them, which led him into a career in video production. He worked as a weekend cameraman and editor for WSMV-Channel 4 in the mid-1990s and since has made music videos, TV commercials (including a series of pro-Tennessee Lottery ads that featured a Church Lady-like character but never were broadcast) and other programming for cable networks such as TLC and the Discovery Channel.

As a young man, he heard of the moon-landing hoax theory and initially decided against pursuing it as a film topic. Later, however, he began studying the Bible and experienced a religious conversion to Christianity that convinced him that he should investigate the hoax theory.

''When I finally decided to do what was right in my personal life — not sleeping around, not doing drugs — I went to a church that took sin seriously,'' he says. ''I started thinking, 'Yeah, there's right and wrong, and there's judgment. If they faked going to the moon, this is important, and they should be held accountable.' ''

Sibrel spent five years — and, he says, more than $750,000 provided by a group of investors ''who wish to remain anonymous'' — researching and making A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, copies of which he now markets for $29.95 on his Web site, www.moonmovie.com.

In the film, Sibrel argues that the Apollo spacecraft orbited the Earth but never landed on the moon, in part because the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the Earth would have been deadly to the astronauts. (James Oberg, an aerospace writer and MSNBC commentator, says this is ''ludicrous.'')

Sibrel also questions numerous aspects of the NASA photos of the moon's surface, noting that shadows of objects near each other — which should run parallel to each other since the only source of light was the sun — converge at angles suggestive of multiple light sources. (Oberg and others scoff at this.)

The famous moon-walk videos? They were faked, Sibrel contends, probably shot on a film set constructed at a top-secret military base.

What Sibrel calls the ''smoking gun'' of A Funny Thing Happened is a piece of video footage that he thinks NASA sent him by mistake.

On the tape, marked ''not for public consumption,'' members of the Apollo 11 crew inside the lunar module are shooting footage through a porthole-shaped window of what appears to be Earth in the distance, surrounded by empty space.

In Sibrel's interpretation of the ''window shot,'' as he refers to it, the astronauts actually were fabricating an image of the planet to make it appear to be 130,000 miles away, when in fact the spacecraft was only a few hundred miles from Earth.

''It's a fake shot of being halfway to the moon, no question about it,'' Sibrel says. ''And if they were faking that, the whole thing was fake.''

'Junior-high howlers'

NASA's policy is not to respond directly to moon-hoax theorists, but the airwaves and the Internet are full of scientists and others who offer dismissive rebuttals of Sibrel's ideas.

''His video is very Madison Avenue, but the style hides a total absence of substance,'' Oberg says. ''His understanding of science is laughable — he says all these junior-high howlers — and he counts on his audience to know even less.''

If the videotape of the Earth in the ''window shot'' were taken from Earth orbit, as Sibrel originally thought, then the cloud cover would have been moving quickly, since an orbiting spacecraft would have been traveling at 17,500 miles an hour, Oberg says.

And he guffaws at Sibrel's more recent theory that the image of the Earth was created with the help of a photographic transparency somehow attached to the porthole.

''It's preposterous,'' Oberg says. ''They spend billions on an elaborate hoax and then use a transparency stuck on a window with Scotch tape? Why wouldn't they simply have brought a video cassette recording of a studio shot?''

Two others — Phil Plait, a California astronomer who has a Web site called badastronomy. com, and Jay Windley, a Utah engineer who runs www.clavius.org, which specifically debunks Sibrel's arguments — say there's an innocent explanation of the ''window shot'' footage.

''What you're seeing is the astronauts practicing for a press conference,'' Plait says. ''And 'not for public consumption' does not mean 'secret' or 'classified.' NASA was simply very PR-conscious, and they didn't want people to see an unpolished press conference. Everything that Bart is reading into this is just nonsense.''

Sibrel, though, is unfazed.

''It's very hard for people to accept that the moon landings were fake, because it involves such national pride,'' he says. ''I've talked to scientists who say that if they saw Neil Armstrong confess on national TV that it was fake, they would still think we went.''

Getting there

Astronauts Gone Wild, by Nashville filmmaker Bart Sibrel, will be screened at 7 p.m. Thursday, with a reception starting at 6:30 p.m., at Belcourt Theatre, 2102 Belcourt Ave. in Hillsboro Village. Tickets are $7 at the door.

Note: Sibrel's first film on the subject, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, sells for $29.95 a copy on Sibrel's Web site, www.moonmovie.com.

Tennessean arts writer Kevin Nance can be reached at 259-8238 or by e-mail at knance@tennessean.com.

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Moon landing hoax video by FOX TV

Post#9 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:47 pm

Moon landing hoax video by FOX TV
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/moo ... y-fox-tv-4

You be the judge. Remember this is FOX though. Comment with what you believe happened.

Watch Google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... conspiracy

great info here:
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/moo ... y-fox-tv-4

“Regarding the Apollo mission, I can’t say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the
Moon. It’s possible that NASA cut corners just to be the first to allegedly go to the
Moon. NASA could have covered it up. If some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely
possible they may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.”
—Dr. Brian O’Leary, Ph.D., standby astronaut on Apollo program, FOX TV, “conspiracy
Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?”

“Well you’re talking to the wrong guy! Why don’t you talk to the administrator at NASA?
We were passengers.”
—Colonel “Buzz” Aldrin, 33rd-Degree Luciferian Freemason, West Point Military Academy
graduate, killer jet-fighter pilot, Apollo 11 Lunar Lander pilot, after viewing Bart
Sibrel’s videotape that included official NASA videotape showing Apollo 11 astronauts in
Low Earth Orbit faking “Live” videotape transmissions from “Lunar” orbit (BuzzAldrin.com)

VIDEO DOWNLOADS:

A Funny thing Happened on the Way to the Moon - Bart Sibrel’s MoonMovie.com masterpiece
caught NASA Apollo astroNots on NASA videotape faking a trip to The Moon while only in
Low Earth Orbit - No wonder Nixon resigned
http://revereradionetwork.com/media/ind ... =%2FVideos

AstroNots Gone Wild - Bart Sibrel’s MoonMovie.com masterpiece takes it on the chin from
Lucerferian Apollo astroNots for daring to pay them to swear on a Christian Bible that
they really did walk on THE Moon
http://revereradionetwork.com/media/ind ... =%2FVideos

Hollywood awards Pirate News TV for Best Music Video - Pirate News Rocks Hollywood
Hypefest!
Welcome to the Twilight Zone - FOR REAL! Pirate News TV’s executive producer John Lee won
“Best Music Video of 2005″ as director of UFOetry’s “We Never Went to the Moon”.
The voting parties were November 10/13 at the world famous Whisky a-Go-Go on the Sunset
Strip. The video was played for the judges and attendees, who cast their vote for best of
the best.
http://ufoetry.com
http://piratenews.org/hollywood.html

NASA Nazis Moon USA - Full Length - Watch Luciferian Apollo astroNots refuse to swear on
a Bible they went to the Moon. Watch Apollo astroNot confess NASA may have faked Apollo.
Watch NASA star warriors video illegal aliens from outer space. Watch Bill Cooper and 11
murdered Apollo astronauts get revenge from the grave. Watch Apollo lunar landers fly
without rocket exhaust. Watch Masonic Mafia flags waving on the moon set. See moon
craters at Area 51 in Las Vegas. Video and MP3 download “We Never Went to the Moon” by
Joshua Poet at Ufoetry.com. From the TV shockumentary September 911 Surprise.
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/6737.php

“Did they land on the Moon?
Ya taking it for granted cuz you say it in your living room.
And soon I might be dealt with for good,
for tryin’ to bring tha real deal to ya neighborhood.
I wish I could find out what they tryin’ to hide
out at Area 51, close to tha sun.
Don’t believe what they say cuz they lie through their teeth.
Politicians be trickin’ every day of the week.
They just lie to tha public and don’t think twice of it.
They don’t care about me and you.
That’s what tha government do, ain’t nothin’ new.
Still trying to make you believe shit that ain’t true.
Did we really set foot on the Moon?
Or was that just an act,
to give you a check? But you gotta give it back, tax after tax.
As we sit back and watch our country fade.
If you think that’s not true then they’re still playing you.
What happened at Roswell? I bet they knew.
They lie - open your eyes.
See what you see.
But the government ain’t gonna play me.”
—Immortal Lore, Herm & Demon, “They Lie” (censored hip-hop rap music formerly at MP3.com,
now at MP3.com.au - Dat Kidz Nyce Productions / IHB, Inc.)

“True, a small replica of our proud U.S. flag was dutifully carted off the Eagle lander
and posted for all to see. But, then, a strange ritual of an entirely different sort, of
a dark and ominous character, took place at Tranquillity Base on the moon. It was not
beamed to the earth via television, for this ritual was carefully crafted beforehand as a
secret ceremony, to be hidden and seen only by the eyes of the adepts of the Illuminati
and its Masonic fraternity. Astronaut Neil Armstrong carefully took out his Masonic apron
and held it up for the cameras over his space suit as if to cover his genitals area-the
power center, or dynamo, of Luciferian energy in Masonic ritual. Today, a photograph of
Armstrong holding his occultic apron hangs on a wall at the House of the Temple, the
sanctuary of the Scottish Rite, in Washington, D.C. Next, brother Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, at
the time a 32nd-degree Masonic initiate, planted on the ‘moon’s’ surface the real flag
intended for honor, the flag the Apollo 11 had carried in its storage compartment, the
flag with the Scottish Rite’s emblem of deep and mysterious spirituality, the
doubleheaded eagle.”
—Professor Texe Marrs, Captain, USAF Intelligence (retired), TexeMarrs.com, Power Of
Prophesy Radio and Newsletter, “The Eagle Has Landed! Magic, Alchemy, and the Illuminati
Conquest of Outer Space,” March 2003
http://texemarrs.com/032003/eagle_has_landed.htm

“I will obey all signs and summons handed to me by a chapter of Masons. I will assist a
Mason when I see him engaged in any difficulty whether he be right or wrong. I promise
and swear to forever conceal and never reveal any of the secrets of Masons or Masonry
under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across from ear to ear, my tongue
plucked out by the roots; my heart taken from under my left breast; my body cut across,
my bowels taken out; my body dissected into four equal parts to hang and remain a terror
to all those who shall presume to violate the sacred obligation of a Mason.”
-Initiation rituals of Freemasonry, “Letters on Freemasonry” by President John Quincy
Adams (published by TexeMarrs.com)

“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons, and should you be summoned as a
witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him. It may be perjury to do
this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations.”
-Ronayne Handbook of Masonry, page 183

“The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained
in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay
[Jesus] is also God. The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high
degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. Yes, Lucifer is God, and
unfortunately Adonay is also God.”
—General Albert Pike, Grand Commander and author of Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and
Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry
http://www.srmason-sj.org

“Freemasons have long been accused of Satanic practices as seen in the ludicrous
illustration right from Leo Taxil’s The Mysteries of Freemasonry, 1897.” Source: Archives
of the Supreme Council, S.J., 33°
-Scottish Rite Journal, “I WAS CALLED A SATANIST TODAY” - February 2002
http://srmason-sj.org/web/journal-files ... 2/moss.htm

“And they had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew was Abaddon,
and in Greek, Apollyon. Abaddon and Apollyon mean Destroyer.”
—Revelation 9:11, Christian Bible

Apollyon. Greek apollyon, destroying, ruining; apollyein to destroy; apo from + lyein to
LOOSE. Bible the angel of the bottomless pit Abaddon: Rev. 9:11.
—Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition

“Apollo ’science’ will continue, and the Mysteries will come out for many years to come.”
—Dr. Rocco Petrone, Apollo program director, Apollo 17, NASA video On the Shoulders of
Giants

Hoodwink. The secrecy, silence, and darkness in which the mysteries of our masonic art
should be preserved from the unhallowed gaze of the profane.
—Dr. Albert Mackey 33, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

Hoodwink. 1. to blindfold 2. to mislead or confuse by trickery; dupe.
—Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition

“When I was at the Bohemian Grove, Neil Armstrong was there, just a year after he stepped
on the moon. He speech by the lake was called ‘The Food of The Future: Oil’. Honestly!
Even the fat cats around me were moaning on their way back to peeing on the redwoods.
Henry Kissinger was there, too. He began his speech talking PEACE, but morphed into a
comparison between our bomber fleet versus Russia’s, and ours was smaller. ‘Vee need more
bombah’s’….. I was more disappointed that Armstrong never mentioned the moon once.
Kissinger was predictable - he’d already bombed Cambodia…. Kissinger can’t go to several
countries, now, or he will be arrested.”
—Reviewer (San Rafael, CA USA), Amazon.com review of Hollyweird DVD “Teddy Bears’
Picnic”, “YOU HAD TO BE THERE!”

“By the prognosis of statisticians, you should be dead in space and I should be in jail
on Earth.”
-Dr Baron Werner von Braun, NASA Nazi Waffen SS Major at Mittelworks underground ICBM
factory and Death Camp at Norhausen, Germany, saved from war-crimes trial and death
penalty for genociding 25,000 slaves via Pentagon’s Operation Paperclip, to Apollo 11
moonwalker Colonel Neil Armstrong
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/inde ... ategoryId=

NASA Nazis Moon USA
http://geocities.com/nasa_moons_usa

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Moon Landing Haux

Post#10 » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:42 am

Moon Landing Haux

moon landing ~~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGfwkWlWiIM

Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 1 ~~~ http://youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 2 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpeIs5MF ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 3 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDL1ugE7 ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 4 ~~~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_yNefh ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 5 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuN ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 6 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU5YyolU ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 7 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZfHLxWf ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 8 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivU7WObC ... ed&search=

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 9 ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhpfy-4 ... ed&search=

Earth from Beyond the Van Allen Belts ~~~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jrWD1Sb ... ed&search=

Fake Moon Landings Exposed!! ~~~ http://www.reformation.org/general-groves.html

FAKED MOON LANDINGS ? ~~~ http://batesmotel.8m.com/

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

NASA busted even more with Moon Landing FAKERY

Post#11 » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:47 am

B U S T E D .... A G A I N

Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wdMvQTNLaUE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wdMvQTNLaUE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

and

Moonfaker Exhibit B-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ8CbelERM8
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bZ8CbelERM8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bZ8CbelERM8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

pokerkid
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I

Post#12 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:57 pm

Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
October 1, 2009
by David McGowan
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon



I can see all of you scratching your heads out there and I know exactly what it is that you are thinking: “Why the hell are we taking this detour to the Moon? What happened to Laurel Canyon? Have you completely lost your mind?”



*Sigh*



It all began a few months ago, when I became very busy at my day job as well as with family drama and with what turned out to be a very time-consuming side project, all of which made it increasingly difficult for me to carve out chunks of time to work on the remaining chapters in the series. Over the next two months or so, I pretty much lost all momentum and soon found it hard to motivate myself to write even when I could find the time.



That happens sometimes. Though it sounds rather cliché, ‘writer’s block’ is a very real phenomenon. There are many times when I can sit down at the keyboard and the words flow out of my head faster than I can get them down on the page. But there are also times when producing just one halfway decent sentence seems a near impossible task. This was one of those times.



I found a new source of inspiration, however, when my wife e-mailed me the recent story about the fake Dutch Moon rock, which I and many others found quite amusing, and which also reminded me that I had a lot of other bits and pieces of information concerning the Apollo project that I had collected over the nine years that have passed since I first wrote about the alleged Moon landings. After taking that first look, back in 2000, I was pretty well convinced that the landings were, in fact, faked, but it was perfectly obvious that the rather short, mostly tongue-in-cheek post that I put up back in July of 2000 was not going to convince anyone else of that.



So I contemplated taking a more comprehensive look at the Apollo program. Toward that end, I pulled up my original Apollo post along with various other bits and pieces scattered throughout past newsletters, threw in all the newer material that had never made it onto my website, and then combed the Internet for additional information. In doing so, I realized that a far better case could be made than what I had previously offered to readers.



I also realized that a far better case could be made than what is currently available on the ‘net.



I was rather surprised actually by how little there is out there – a couple of books by Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, a smattering of websites and a variety of YouTube videos of varying quality. Virtually all of the websites and videos tend to stick to the same ground covered by Kaysing and Rene, and they almost all use the same NASA photographs to argue the same points. So too do the sites devoted to ‘debunking’ the notion that the landings were faked, and those sites seem to actually outnumber the hoax sites.



While suffering through the numbing uniformity of the various websites on both sides of the aisle, it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need of a fresh approach and some new insights. So I began writing again. Feverishly. That does not mean, however, that I have abandoned the Laurel Canyon series. I intend to get back to it quite soon.



And truth be told, while the Apollo story may initially appear to be a radical departure from the ongoing Laurel Canyon series, it actually isn’t much of a detour at all. After all, we’re still going to be living in the 1960s and 1970s. And to a significant degree, we’re probably still going to be hanging out in Laurel Canyon – because who else, after all, was NASA going to trust to handle the post-production work on all that Apollo footage if not Lookout Mountain Laboratory?



I am very well aware, by the way, that there are many, many people out there – even many of the people who have seen through other tall tales told by our government – who think that Moon hoax theorists are complete kooks. And a whole lot of coordinated effort has gone into casting them as such. That makes wading into the Moon hoax debate a potentially dangerous affair.



Remember when Luther (played by Don Knotts) gets taken to court and sued for slander in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken? And don’t try to pretend like you’ve never seen it, because we both know that you have. So anyway, he goes to court and a character witness is called and the guy delivers credible testimony favoring Luther and it is clear that the courtroom is impressed and everything is looking good for our nebbish hero, Luther. Remember what happens next though? On cross-examination, the witness reveals that he is the president of a UFO club that holds their meetings on Mars!



The courtroom, of course, erupts with laughter and all of that formerly credible testimony immediately flies right out the window.



I have already received e-mails warning that I will suffer a similar fate (from people who heard me discussing the topic on Meria Heller’s radio show). Not to worry though – I have somewhat of an advantage over others who have attempted to travel this path: I don’t really care. My mission is to ferret out the truth, wherever it may lie; if at various points along the way, some folks are offended and others question my sanity, that’s not really something that I lose a lot of sleep over.



Anyway, a whole lot of people are extremely reluctant to give up their belief in the success of the Apollo missions. A lot of people, in fact, pretty much shut down at the mere mention of the Moon landings being faked, refusing to even consider the possibility (Facebook, by the way, is definitely not the best place to promote the notion that the landings were faked, in case anyone was wondering). And yet there are some among the True Believers who will allow that, though they firmly believe that we did indeed land on the Moon, they would have understood if it had been a hoax. Given the climate of the times, with Cold War tensions simmering and anxious Americans looking for some sign that their country was still dominant and not technologically inferior to the Soviets, it could be excused if NASA had duped the world.



Such sentiments made me realize that the Moon landing lie is somewhat unique among the big lies told to the American people in that it was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively benign lie, and one that could be easily spun. Admitting that the landings were faked would not have nearly the same impact as, say, admitting to mass murdering 3,000 Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate and then using that crime as a pretext to wage two illegal wars and strip away civil, legal and privacy rights.



And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign lie, there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years – years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to.



But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?



That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.



It has been my experience that the vast majority of the people who truly believe in the Moon landings know virtually nothing about the alleged missions. And when confronted with some of the more implausible aspects of those alleged missions, the most frequently offered argument is the one that every ‘conspiracy theorist’ has heard at least a thousand times: “That can’t possibly be true because there is no way that a lie that big could have been covered up all this time … too many people would have known about it … yadda, yadda, yadda.”



But what if your own eyes and your innate (though suppressed) ability to think critically and independently tell you that what all the institutions of the State insist is true is actually a lie? What do you do then? Do you trust in your own cognitive abilities, or do you blindly follow authority and pretend as though everything can be explained away? If your worldview will not allow you to believe what you can see with your own eyes, then the problem, it would appear, is with your worldview. So do you change that worldview, or do you live in denial?



The Moon landing lie is unique among the big lies in another way as well: it is a lie that seemingly cannot be maintained indefinitely. Washington need never come clean on, say, the Kennedy assassinations. After all, they’ve been lying about the Lincoln assassination for nearly a century-and-a-half now and getting away with it. But the Moon landing hoax, I would think, has to have some kind of expiration date.



How many decades can pass, after all, without anyone coming even close to a reenactment before people start to catch on? Four obviously haven’t been enough, but how about five, or six, or seven? How about when we hit the 100-year anniversary?



If the first trans-Atlantic flight had not been followed up with another one for over forty years, would anyone have found that unusual? If during the early days of the automobile, when folks were happily cruising along in their Model T’s at a top speed of 40 MPH, someone had suddenly developed a car that could be driven safely at 500 MPH, and then after a few years that car disappeared and for many decades thereafter, despite tremendous advances in automotive technology, no one ever again came close to building a car that could perform like that, would that seem at all odd?



There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”



The goal of any dissident writer is to crack open the doors of perception enough to let a little light in – so that hopefully the seeds of a political reawakening will be planted. There are many doors that can be pried open to achieve that goal, but this one seems particularly vulnerable. Join me then as we take a little trip to the Moon. Or at least pretend to.





“If NASA had really wanted to fake the moon landings – we’re talking purely hypothetical here – the timing was certainly right. The advent of television, having reached worldwide critical mass only years prior to the moon landing, would prove instrumental to the fraud’s success.”
Wired Magazine



Adolph Hitler knew a little bit about the fine art of lying. In Mein Kampf, he wrote that, "If you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really fucking big lie."



Truth be told, I’m not exactly conversant in the German language so that may not be an exact translation, but it certainly captures the gist of what the future Fuhrer was trying to say. He went on to explain that this was so because everyone in their everyday lives tells little lies, and so they fully expect others to do so as well. But most people do not expect anyone to tell a real whopper … you know, the kind of brazen, outlandish lie that is just too absurd to actually be a lie. The kind of lie that is so over-the-top that no one would dare utter it if it was in fact a lie.



That is the type of lie, according to Hitler, that will fool the great masses of people, even when the lie is so transparently thin that it couldn't possibly stand up to any kind of critical analysis by anyone actually exercising their brain rather than just blindly accepting the legitimacy of the information they are fed. Take, for example, the rather fanciful notion that the United States landed men on the Moon in the late 1960's and early 1970's. That's the kind of lie we're talking about here: the kind that seems to defy logic and reason and yet has become ingrained in the national psyche to such an extent that it passes for historical fact.



And anyone who would dare question that ‘historical fact,’ needless to say, must surely be stark raving mad.



Before proceeding any further, I should probably mention here that, until relatively recently, if I had heard anyone putting forth the obviously drug-addled notion that the Moon landings were faked, I would have been among the first to offer said person a ride down to the grip store. While conducting research into various other topics, however, it has become increasingly apparent that there are almost always a few morsels of truth in any 'conspiracy theory,' no matter how outlandish that theory may initially appear to be, and so despite my initial skepticism, I was compelled to take a closer look at the Apollo program.



The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.



Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal.



And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:



Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do?

Ivan: Let's just shit-can our entire space program.

Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort!

Ivan: Fuck it! If we can't be first, we aren't going at all.

Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained.

Ivan: Nyet!



In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the Moon for the sake of their own national defense.



It is not just the Soviets, of course, who have never made it to the Moon. The Chinese haven’t either. Nor has any other industrialized nation, despite the rather obvious fact that every such nation on the planet now possesses technology that is light-years beyond what was available to NASA scientists in the 1960s.



Some readers will recall that (and younger readers might want to cover their eyes here, because the information to follow is quite shocking), in the 1960s, a full complement of home electronics consisted of a fuzzy, 13-channel, black-and-white television set with a rotary tuning dial, rabbit ears and no remote. Such cutting-edge technology as the pocket calculator was still five years away from hitting the consumer market.



It is perfectly obvious, of course, that it was not consumer electronics that allegedly sent men to the Moon. The point here though is that advances in aerospace technology mirror advances in consumer technology, and just as there has been revolutionary change in entertainment and communications technology, so too has aerospace technology advanced by light-years in the last four decades. Technologically speaking, the NASA scientists working on the Apollo project were working in the Dark Ages. So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.



It would be particularly easy, needless to say, for America to do it again, since we’ve already done all the research and development and testing. Why then, I wonder, have we not returned to the Moon since the last Apollo flight? Following the alleged landings, there was considerable talk of establishing a space station on the Moon, and of possibly even colonizing Earth's satellite. Yet all such talk was quickly dropped and soon forgotten and for nearly four decades now not a single human has been to the Moon.



Again, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat? Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon? Why has no other nation ever attempted to send a manned spacecraft anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit?



Is it because we already learned everything there was to learn about the Moon? If so, then could it reasonably be argued that it would be possible to make six random landings on the surface of the Earth and come away with a complete and thorough understanding of this heavenly body? Are we to believe that the international scientific community has no open questions that could be answered by a, ahem, ‘return’ trip to the Moon? And is there no military advantage to be gained by sending men to the Moon? Has man’s keen interest in exploring celestial bodies, evident throughout recorded history, suddenly gone into remission?



Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade as well as an even more expensive ‘hot’ war in Southeast Asia, and yet we still managed to finance no less than seven manned missions to the Moon, using a new, disposable, multi-sectioned spacecraft each time. And yet in the four decades since then, we are apparently supposed to believe that no other nation has been able to afford to do it even once.



While we’re on the subject of the passage of time, exactly how much time do you suppose will have to pass before people in significant numbers begin to question the Moon landings? NASA has recently announced that we will not be returning, as previously advertised, by the year 2020. That means that we will pass the fifty-year anniversary of the first alleged landing without a sequel. Will that be enough elapsed time that people will begin to wonder? What about after a full century has passed by? Will our history books still talk about the Moon landings? And if so, what will people make of such stories? When they watch old preserved films from the 1960s, how will they reconcile the laughably primitive technology of the era with the notion that NASA sent men to the Moon?



Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles*. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program – the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles.



(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)



To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).



To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.





“But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”



Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that shit back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!



As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”



Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?



Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?



Some of you are probably thinking that everyone has already seen the footage anyway, when it was allegedly broadcast live back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or on NASA’s website, or on YouTube, or on numerous television documentaries. But you would be mistaken. The truth is that the original footage has never been aired, anytime or anywhere – and now, since the tapes seem to have conveniently gone missing, it quite obviously never will be.



The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, have been for over three decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article had to offer. Also to be found was an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”



So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that. That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage. NASA of course has never explained why, even if it were true that the original broadcasts had to be ‘re-shot,’ they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.



With NASA’s admission of how the original broadcasts were created, it is certainly not hard to imagine how fake Moon landing footage could have been produced. As I have already noted, the 1960s were a decidedly low-tech era, and NASA appears to have taken a very low-tech approach. As Moon landing skeptics have duly noted, if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth. Here then is the formula for creating Moonwalk footage: take original footage of guys in ridiculous costumes moving around awkwardly right here on our home planet, broadcast it over a tiny, low-resolution television monitor at about half speed, and then re-film it with a camera focused on that screen. The end result will be broadcast-ready tapes that, in addition to having that all-important grainy, ghosty, rather surreal ‘broadcast from the Moon’ look, also appear to show the astronauts moving about in entirely unnatural ways.



But not, it should be noted, too unnatural. And doesn’t that seem a little odd as well? If we’re being honest here (and for my testosterone-producing readers, this one is directed at you), the average male specimen, whether astronaut or plumber, never really grows up and stops being a little boy. And what guy, given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to spend some time in a reduced gravity environment, isn’t going to want to see how high he can jump? Or how far he can jump? Hitting a golf ball? Who the hell wants to see that? How about tossing a football for a 200-yard touchdown pass? Or how about the boys dazzling the viewing audience with some otherworldly acrobatics?



And yes, Neil and the guys did exhibit some playfulness at times while allegedly walking on the Moon, but doesn’t it seem a bit odd that they failed to do anything that couldn’t be faked simply by changing the tape speed? When I attended college, I knew a guy on the volleyball team who had a 32” vertical leap right here on Earth. So when I see guys jumping maybe 12”, if that, in a 1/6 gravity environment with no air resistance, I’m not really all that impressed.



Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Given the fact that they were much lighter on their feet and not subject to air and wind resistance, shouldn’t the astronauts have been able to move quicker on the Moon than here on Earth? Was slow motion the only thing NASA could come up with to give the video footage an otherworldly feel?



Needless to say, if what has been proposed here is indeed how the ‘Moon landing’ footage in the public domain was created, then the highly incriminating original footage – which would have looked like any other footage shot here on Earth, except for the silly costumes and props – would have had to have been destroyed. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”



Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.



There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.



You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest