Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation

[smartcooky]

Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?

Oops. that's right, I had forgotten about that.

[molesworth]

“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

You really don't have a clue about the real world of engineering, in any field - mechanical, electrical, electronic, chemical, software or whatever.  If you think anyone at any level putting together systems as complex as those for Apollo wouldn't have noticed it was fake, you're deluding yourself.

“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.

And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   

[AtomicDog]

Another instance of a deluded mind defending the indefensible. The feather in the sideways drop by the youtuber neither tumbles nor spins, whereas the feather on the movie set does at least two full rotations before it hits the ground.

You can deny it all you want. I'll leave it to the observer to see that the YouTube video shows exactly what I say it shows.

It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.

You sad nit-picking individual.

The Youtuber contended that he could duplicate the "hammer and feather" video. He failed miserably.

Since lying and crying "nit-picking" is the only response you have, I'll have to declare victory again.

Ok, where do I start? The rocket launches, using the working bits to get it out of sight, or at least to a point after the producer cuts to the control room. It then runs out of juice and the entire rocket, including the bits that don’t work, fall into the ocean. Some years later, they say they’ve recovered a first stage rocket. But I was implying that the third stages and LM’s from all the lunar missions are also down there, which are the bits, that if found and reported, would give the game away. On second thoughts, make that just the third stage, as the LM would just add unneeded weight. If I was any good at drawing, I’d have a go at doing you a diagram.

Oh? You say that the Apollo third stages are at the bottom of the ocean? These people say that they saw Saturn third stages and Apollo spacecraft leave earth orbit and head for the Moon:

https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Notice that there are witnesses to, and they provide contemporary photographic evidence of, among other things, Apollo TLI,  S-IVB shroud deployment, and command module reentry. Or are they in on it, too?

Here's an astronomer who found Apollo 12's third stage. He thought it was an asteroid, but the spectroscopic signature of titanium paint identified it as a S-IVB:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

I know: he was a paid CIA troll, right? Or was he just a dupe?

Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?

That one’s yours to keep. Use it wisely.

Typical cambo. Argues a HB point vociferously, and when shown definitely that he is wrong, dismisses the point with a wave of his hand. A common tactic of yours.

[Abaddon]

It's lke cambo has simply sucked up and barfed every crackpot loon website ever known.

[dwight]

Wait a minute! Did someone without any clue whatsover about Skylab other than perhaps its name, post the ring locker (Skylab 500) TV without referring to the 16mm footage showing the full ring locker)? I wonder what would happen if someone who actually -did- know about Skylab decided to debunk it?

[gillianren]

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.

And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.

[bknight]

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.

And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.

Yes his posting style is a bit cumbersome to follow.  Perhaps he thinks it is short hand, or he doesn't want folks to search to find the original quotes?

[AtomicDog]

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it.

And again your lack of knowledge / understanding is showing.  Kubrick didn't create the effects himself (do you actually know what a director does on a movie?).  He had ideas and concepts for what he wanted, and relied on a team of specialists to achieve it.  Look up "Doug Trumbull" and his work if you want some insight into one of the greatest effects designers in the history of movies.

In fact, if you were going to be creating this hoax footage, as you claim was done, you'd have absolutely no need for someone as demanding and picky as Kubrick.  You'd want a team of effects designers and builders, like Trumbull, who could recreate the exact effects as predicted by the physics of lunar gravity, vacuum and the material properties of the lunar surface.  Kubrick wouldn't have been able to stop himself from interfering, changing "the plot", asking for unrealistic effects because "they'll look better" etc.

Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?   

Seriously.  I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to!), but he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick.  He apparently thinks that citing Napoleon proves he does, but even Frank Darabont has a specific style.  And I wouldn't hire him to fake Moon landings, either, and by all accounts he's easier to work with.

Yes his posting style is a bit cumbersome to follow.  Perhaps he thinks it is short hand, or he doesn't want folks to search to find the original quotes?

I think that's his intent. Sometimes it takes me days to find one of his references to a quote of mine in his wall of merde.

[molesworth]

I think that's his intent. Sometimes it takes me days to find one of his references to a quote of mine in his wall of merde.

It may be that he still hasn't figured out how to use the quote feature, especially for multi-quotes.  The fact that he tends to put quoted text in inverted commas, even within the quote block, kind of implies something like that...

[Obviousman]

In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik, a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.

Slight correction there: The manned version of the Jindivik was known as the Pika.

[Obviousman]

It's lke cambo has simply sucked up and barfed every crackpot loon website ever known.

I think they have a predilection for The Blunder From Down Under.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Wait a minute! Did someone without any clue whatsover about Skylab other than perhaps its name, post the ring locker (Skylab 500) TV without referring to the 16mm footage showing the full ring locker)? I wonder what would happen if someone who actually -did- know about Skylab decided to debunk it?

I can’t think 🤔 who should we call 😂👍

[apollo16uvc]

Thanks for posting my videos. Mr. Henderson and I appreciate the support. For more of Scott's work, check out http://www.aulis.com. We've wrapped up the Apollo Moon Hoax with a neat little bow with that discovery of the wet flag on Apollo 17, drying from the edges in. No comeback from that.

I've uploaded a total of 10 Apollo Hoax videos now - all can be found on my YouTube playlist here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qRK_HWNDSFMzaitzBv13tTH

Cheers!

-Paul On The Plane

You're welcome Paul!

This forum was a little dead with mostly old 'Conspiracy Evidence'  that has been debunked countless times. So I wanted to bring in some new looks at the Apollo footage.

The best,
apollo16uvc

[paulontheplane]

[Abaddon]

“Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.”

Extraordinary evidence? On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can.

That is a ridgeline, do I need to post the obligatory Fr. Ted video?

You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots,

Is it? You have ignored the famous house rock.

Not only does this sink your "few yards" bollocks, it also illustrates the ridge lines.

which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon.

Why do you refuse to see anything?

We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

Nope. You have no evidence at all.

So let's go with your evidence...

https://youtu.be/2Hrz0XeYtk0

Why is your supposed wire curved? Why does your supposed wire have different attachment points? Why aer your supposed attachment points never in line with the COG? Why is lens flare evidence of wires when it suits you, yet ignored when it does not?

https://youtu.be/uq9cZbHSnhs

First, a whinge that resolution in the 60's was not as good as your cell. Of course it wasn't. tech has moved along in the intervening 50 some years. Get a clue. Then a claim of "identical frames". A flat out lie. 29.97 frame rate? another lie. The footage has been CONVERTED to 29.97 fps. It originally was at a much lower frame rate. Dupes are inevitable in such a conversion. And that is a problem for you. Your claim is now that the lunar footage was shot at 29.97 fps. That is utter bollocks, but it is your claim. Defend it.

https://youtu.be/OLjRfUfgyTg

Further illustrates that you have no comprehension of frame rates or how cameras actually work.

https://youtu.be/llIqXODC3jk

And now you try to do math. Amusingly borked.

“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

Sez it all. We are dealing with an individual who actually thinks he can become an expert on anything by dint of youboob.

https://youtu.be/9S30XLds5gc?t=249

“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

Yup. According to cambo, all engineers everywhere are simply automatons. Which begs the question. ~If all engineers are automatons simply following the instructions of their masters, then why do those masters even bother?

“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?

No, we simply observe that when caught out on the facts you try to pretend it was a joke. We see you, and it is not a pretty picture.

“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.

Oh, so you weren't there. thus everything you say may be dismissed.

“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html

Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.

“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

What a load.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.

That is all in your head. It has no intersection with reality.wa

“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?

Yeah, you missed that one.

“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.

Wander along with a stupid notion and then complain that said stupid notion is mocked? You are somehow surprised?

“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

Sure. Now explain it.

“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”

Jesus. I have lost the will to continue with the nonsense