Doubts about the moon landings

THE SYSTEM

A general diagram of the system is shown in figure 2. The image is focussed by the lens through the filter wheel onto the faceplate of the image tube....

etc...etc...

It basically tells you straight up in the second sentence of the description of the workings detailed in the schematic. It outlines the flow in order according to the sequence. The sequence begins with the adjustment of the lens. The very first input.

They don't have those big ass wheels on the lens for nothing.

Not an engineer but also not stupid.

The horizontal and vertical sweep do not adjust the aperture. There is absolutely nothing in the document that says anything like this. That is done manually, that is what the big ass wheel is for. It had not been invented yet! There is a internal aperture correction used to boost the image tube 200 TV line response by 40 percent. That is it. It is pre set.
 
Last edited:
It is also interesting to note that the video in question, with the flag is no longer available. It was replaced with the extremely low res real media version and it has been cropped to remove the moving flag. Not only that but there are no longer any mp4 videos of Apollo 14 available at all, they have all been taken down and only the very crappy RM videos are available.

I was also going to show a mp4 clip of one of the A14 astronauts running where it can be clearly seen there is a dramatic change in frame rate as he runs. This is also not available of course and the low res version was altered to hide this. I am not kidding.

NASA have been involved in damage control even several decades after the missions. Not just with the videos but also the photographs, several have undergone photo manipulation after the fact. Some of this is documented at the AULIS site.

There is not just one line of evidence or even just several there are literally hundreds.
 
repeat after me
1. The boilers on the USS Maine blew up
2. There were no weapons on the Lusitania
3. FDR knew nothing about a coming Japanese attack
4. Lee Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK
5. The Maddox was fired upon in the gulf of Tonkin
7 . We landed on the moon.

I am from the government and I am here to help you......
 
Yep, you're definitely hiding something CM.

Iraqi's throwing babies on the floor.
Saddam's Weapons of mass destruction.
911 was coordinated from a cave with box cutter wielding hijackers.
Bin Laden's assassination
Syrian gas attacks.

And Epstein most definitely killed himself.
 
I was also going to show a mp4 clip of one of the A14 astronauts running where it can be clearly seen there is a dramatic change in frame rate as he runs. This is also not available of course and the low res version was altered to hide this. I am not kidding.
I am curious as to what this would have demonstrated.
David
 
Yep, you're definitely hiding something CM.

Iraqi's throwing babies on the floor.
Saddam's Weapons of mass destruction.
911 was coordinated from a cave with box cutter wielding hijackers.
Bin Laden's assassination
Syrian gas attacks.

And Epstein most definitely killed himself.
Also,

Shortly before Russia was to hold the football World Cup, President Putin took the decision to murder Sergei Skripal (who had already spent years in a Russian jail because he spied for the West) and his daughter Yulia. He decided to use his most deadly weapon - Novichok nerve gas, but the top secret Russian agents sent to perform this task failed, so that although the victims both fell ill in Salisbury (a town very close to the UK's nerve gas research lab), neither of them died. They are now being kept incommunicado for their own protection.

Some years earlier, The dreaded President Putin, had previously decided to kill an opponent in Britain. On that occasion he used a rare isotope of Polonium.

When the elected president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, was forced out of office by a mob in Kiev, President Putin pleaded with the new regime in Kiev not to use force to re-take the dissident parts of Ukraine that preferred the government they had previously voted for. This was obviously a trick to legitimise the Russian intervention after the Kiev government used force anyway. The Russians also wanted to take Crimea, and again they used a very sneaky tactic. They offered the region a vote to decide if they would like to re-join Russia, and they chose to do so (rather than be attacked by Ukrainian forces under the Kiev government). This was really sneaky because it justified the subsequent peaceful Russian takeover take over after they voted 90% in favour of re-joining Russia. Russia must not be allowed to get away with invading another country like this!

The Russians used the internet to interfere with our Brexit referendum, the 2016 election in the US, and who knows what else by manipulating Facebook. They also regularly pass off fake news to the West.

Britain voted to leave the EU back in 2016 We still do not know if this will be possible.

Warning - this post is sarcasm rich.

David
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...y-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

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?
 
I am curious as to what this would have demonstrated.
David

It basically shows the astronaut jogging past the camera at a reasonable speed and then suddenly switches to the standard slow motion that we normally see. A very abrupt speed change never seen in the rest of the footage.

There is nothing about Lunar gravity or the suit that should force all kinesiology to be in slow motion. Yet that is is exactly what we see. There are some amazing archive footage of simulated lunar gravity done showing the incredible athletic feats that would be possible. Enormous flips, diving into the air and landing on your hands, climbing poles with one hand etc... It's very cool!

Different frame rates were used, usually dependent on relation to the camera. The master film was most likely captured at 144 fps. From here several patterns could be extracted via optical printer, for the different speeds. This also includes the independent red, green and blue channels resulting in the extraordinary rainbow motion blur.

For the most part it was quite accurate but not every time. Specifically the difference between the calculated fall speed of the astronauts being suspended with a counter weight system and those of thrown or falling objects that require a different frame rate. This is where a lot of the errors occurred. Through the optical printer you could easily and accurately extrapolate whatever would be required. They did get sloppy though.

I hopefully will get around to provide full details of this and the patterns that were used. I have thoroughly tested it and works in every single instance. There is the added difficulty of the conversion from 24 fps to 30 fps for the majority, resulting in duplicate frames. There are also dropped frames and other sequences that are converted from lower frame rates resulting in a number of duplicate frames per second. Still these can be converted and reversed engineered. This works well to hide inconsistencies. These days we can generate interpolated frames from footage.

The system was quite ingenious for the time. The most likely suspect for this was Douglas Trumbull. Who coincidentally enough was very big into the effects of frame rates and film. He was the VFX master of the time. It was masterfully done.

When we finally see people on the moon the first thing we should recognize is the discreet difference in human kinesiology. Then we'll see what we have always seen, that it is quite obviously just slow motion. I don't get why people don't recognize it, there is no reason for it.
 
If NASA was a witness at a criminal or civil trial they would be impeached by their own prior MASSIVE lies. False moon rocks?
There are no boundaries to their collective hubris. So at what point do your believe them?
 
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
"...Orion has protection shielding it will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."

No problem we did it multiples times 50 years ago without a hitch, eazy peazy. Had the tech, had the bio data and of course we must have had the radiation levels. Oh wait, all that is gone! All we need to do is go back to 60's tech dude. Solved!

For more information on this positively incredible state of affairs I recommend you check out this article that cover much more than this perplexing statement from Kelly Smith.

The Apollo Myth: A Hindrance to Human Space Exploration*
by Phil Kouts PhD


https://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm

The author has completed a series of articles1 based on official NASA-published data and reached conclusions from NASA’s technical statements. Virtually all technical aspects of the Apollo record do not withstand the scrutiny of pragmatic reviews.
 
Last edited:
The Apollo Myth. How much more do you need. We are talking about the events and evidence
that surround a MOON LANDING. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. This
gentleman is telling you in nice language, MAN NEVER WENT TO THE MOON. Thank you Lone!
 
I just uploaded an excerpt from Jeff Wintzer's documentary Moon Hoax Now.

What we see to start with is the rainbow motion blur (colour banding) I mentioned previously. You'll see one of the astronauts far off, well away from the LM. While the other is near the LM. We get a sense of the position of the light source and surface in the reflection of one of the astronauts visor. What happens next is extraordinary, we see two enormous shadows that stretch right out even beyond the astronaut all the way out to the horizon!

The reason the colour banding is mentioned is to confirm this is happening on set and is not a post camera artifact or anything like that. The shadow is also subject to the rainbow motion blur we see in all of the footage. The shadow also interacts with the astronaut. Meaning it is in the scene, in the environment.

Given that the only light source should be the Sun and only the Sun. These shadows are quite impossible.

 
Shadows can reach an extremely long way (a wave of an arm will reach 100s of metres in an uninterrupted environment at sunset) when the sun is very low in the sky, as here.
 
Set against this anomaly hunting, even conclusive proof that the videos are faked/shot in a (windy) studio are no evidence that NASA didn’t get to the moon. They are different questions.

Question 1. Did NASA go to the moon?

Question 2. Were some moon scenes ineptly shot in a studio?

Whilst (IMO) the evidence for 2 is thin, the answer to both questions could be ‘yes’.

There is a stack of third party (ie non-NASA/USA) evidence that the Apollo missions happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
 
Set against this anomaly hunting, even conclusive proof that the videos are faked/shot in a (windy) studio are no evidence that NASA didn’t get to the moon. They are different questions.

Question 1. Did NASA go to the moon?

Question 2. Were some moon scenes ineptly shot in a studio?

Whilst (IMO) the evidence for 2 is thin, the answer to both questions could be ‘yes’.

There is a stack of third party (ie non-NASA/USA) evidence that the Apollo missions happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Although I broadly agree with you, I would conflate questions 1 and 2 - if any of the footage was faked, someone needs to come clean and explain exactly what happened and why.

I think LS should provide an alternative scenario - at least in outline - as to what happened. Otherwise we are simply hunting for anomalies.

By analogy, when people criticise psychic research as 'simple looking for anomalies', my feeling is that if that were true, the evidence for psychic phenomena would be greatly diminished. However I think psychic phenomena (in the broadest sense - including things like NDE's and probably UFO's) are not just random - they pain a very interesting picture of reality.

I glanced at your link, and was a bit underwhelmed by the constructed version of the lunar surface at the Apolo 15 landing site. Also the fact that Apollo 12 returned a camera from an earlier unmanned craft doesn't seem too decisive, given the scale of subterfuge required to pull off such a hoax at all.

OTH, one of the landings (at least) involved the deployment of some accurate laser reflectors which have worked to provide very accurate measurements of the Earth-moon position - and I don't see how that could have happened otherwise. These things reflect enough laser light when illuminated from Earth, to be detected reflected back to Earth! Some sort of unmanned vehicle would have needed to land, and somehow deploy these reflectors. The entire mission would have taken much effort. It would have been easire to find some reason why the 'corner reflectors' never worked properly.

David
 
Last edited:
Shadows can reach an extremely long way (a wave of an arm will reach 100s of metres in an uninterrupted environment at sunset) when the sun is very low in the sky, as here.

So you think those are the other astronauts arms? All the way to the horizon line? Is that correct? Reaching over their heads?

Why is the other astronauts shadow not stretching to the horizon? Surely we should at least some shadow of the rover reaching an extensive distance as well.

The angle of light can easily be seen. The other astronaut is at the rover. We have two angles to consider , elevation and azimuth. I don't think either will help you. Consider the location and angles, a distant light can create long shadows but it will not create enormous ones as we see here. For that the light source must be close. Look at where they enter and exit the frame. It can't be done.

Perhaps another sim? I really don't think it is needed, but I also don't mind, I enjoy that stuff. I think I could get reasonably accurate. All the required information is there, thanks to the reflection.
 
Last edited:
I think LS should provide an alternative scenario - at least in outline - as to what happened. Otherwise we are simply hunting for anomalies.

You mean why it was faked?

Was it faked and why it was faked are related but also separate questions I think.

Just as was a murder committed and why a murder was committed are distinctly different.

OTH, one of the landings (at least) involved the deployment of some accurate laser reflectors which have worked to provide very accurate measurements of the Earth-moon position - and I don't see how that could have happened otherwise. These things reflect enough laser light when illuminated from Earth, to be detected reflected back to Earth! Some sort of unmanned vehicle would have needed to land, and somehow deploy these reflectors. The entire mission would have taken much effort. It would have been easire to find some reason why the 'corner reflectors' never worked properly.

David

The Russians placed reflectors on the Moon via probe.
 
Last edited:
Set against this anomaly hunting, even conclusive proof that the videos are faked/shot in a (windy) studio are no evidence that NASA didn’t get to the moon. They are different questions.

That is exactly right Malf. I agree. Logic does not allow that leap even if it does suggest it.

I have no evidence for that but my intuition tells me that this is actually the case. At the very least I say we have not got the whole story to this.

I am glad to see you included that your opinion that the evidence for no. 2 being thin is just your opinion, and not due to any real analysis.

https://www.aulis.com/ .
 
Last edited:
I don't think the term anomaly hunting gives these issues any justice.

These are glaring issues that occupy almost every aspect. From the film to the photographs to the technical aspects, to the incredible historical precedent of losing mostly everything to what was to be the greatest technological achievement of all time. To the fact that this was 50 years ago with 1960 tech and we are still trying to work out how to do it. When back then it was done inside of a decade! Technology moves incrementally forward not backward.

Yes it is an anomaly. You hardly have to hunt for these things they are directly in your face.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top