Buzz Aldrin says we didn't go to the moon

[ArMaP]

Much like the Moon rocks that turned out to have tree rings in them.  If you really had Moon rocks then you don't need to hand out fake ones.  (Unless the Moon has fossilised trees on it of course.)

Any link to that?

And finally, you don't need to make fake footage "just in case" unless you are planning to potentially fake it if you fail.  If you believe they intended to do that then you are one step from admitting the truth.  They faked Apollo 11.

I'm one step from nothing, admitting the possibility that they had fake footage to show in case they failed means only that, it doesn't mean that they did fail.

Can you show clear evidence that they failed and never reached the Moon?

[fansongecho]

@ArMaP - this was widely reported buddy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html   

https://phys.org/news/2009-09-moon-fake.html 

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

Cheers!

Fans'

[astr0144]

Thanks for posting the video.

"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon"

I will try to watch it in full when I can...

Its looks like it maybe one of the better videos that oppose the Moon Landings..

There was recently someone on  ITVs this Morning (in the UK)  that referred to the title of this video..

http://www.itv.com/thismorning

Martin Kenny was one of the researchers who was opposing the landings against a Doctor who disagreed with him..Dr Sarah Bosman.

it seems the media later seemed to discredit any suggestions to his claim...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/morning-fans-hysterics-conspiracy-theorist-13014483

He also referred to this video title as well

I have not as yet got around to watching either in full... but I have seen some parts when I did a quick browse..

"Astronauts gone wild"...

The one I post is 1 hr 28 mins long... but there are others I found  under the same title about 52 mins long..

They never left LEO which is why they had to fake pictures of shots of a distant Earth.

See from 34"

[Pimander]

Any link to that?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

I'm one step from nothing, admitting the possibility that they had fake footage to show in case they failed means only that, it doesn't mean that they did fail.

It doesn't mean they succeeded either.  Scepticism does not only apply only to things that are not supposedly mainstream accepted knowledge.

Can you show clear evidence that they failed and never reached the Moon?

Yes.  Fake Moon rocks given to the Prime Minister of Netherlands.  Astronauts not agreeing whether they can see stars on the way to the Moon.

Do you actually believe if you have really visited the Moon that you don't know whether you can see stars there?  Get real ArMaP. 

That is clear evidence.  And if you claim human testimony is not evidence then the testimony of a bunch of guys who don't know what they even saw on the way there is certainly not evidence that they have been.

Real scepticism is to be sceptical of the original claim.  NASA claim that Armstrong and Buzz went on Apollo 11 to the Moon.  After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Well where is the money then?  A few pics that may have been done in a studio?  A cardboard and mylar model that is buckled everywhere I can see metal? Some men who are obviously lying as they don't even agree about what they saw?

What did Armstrong have to say (and, lets face it,  he tried to say as little as possible for most of his post-Apollo life).  The shame on this guys face is plain for all to see.  NOT PRIDE!  Shame!

"We only completed a beginning"; "We leave YOU much that is un-done" ; "There are places to go beyond BELIEF" ; "For one of those who can remove one of truths protective layers"

If you don't understand that message folks (including you ArMaP) then you are blind.



Be a real sceptic and don't just be sceptical of my scepticism.

[fansongecho]

Not exactly on topic but -

And I had a feeling back when X-files took off that there was truth hidden in plain sight. 

[ArMaP]

@ArMaP - this was widely reported buddy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html   

Thanks, now I remember the case.

I didn't consider it important then, so I forgot about it, and I still don't find it important, as that's one rock that had more than one owner, and even if it's the one given by the astronauts it doesn't mean that all the other rocks given to other institutions were all fake Moon rocks.

[ArMaP]

Yes.  Fake Moon rocks given to the Prime Minister of Netherlands.  Astronauts not agreeing whether they can see stars on the way to the Moon.

Not really, what is fake is the rock on the museum, we don't know if that's the rock given to the Prime Minister.

Do you actually believe if you have really visited the Moon that you don't know whether you can see stars there?  Get real ArMaP. 

I don't know, I was never in a similar situation.

That is clear evidence.  And if you claim human testimony is not evidence then the testimony of a bunch of guys who don't know what they even saw on the way there is certainly not evidence that they have been.

No, I consider that evidence, but not clear evidence.

Real scepticism is to be sceptical of the original claim.  NASA claim that Armstrong and Buzz went on Apollo 11 to the Moon.  After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I always start by accepting the original claim, unless it sounds too unlikely, and I never liked "canned sentences", like that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

A few pics that may have been done in a studio?

They are more than "a few", and I have never seen clear evidence that they could have been done in a studio and could not have been done on the Moon.

A cardboard and mylar model that is buckled everywhere I can see metal?

That is your perception, it doesn't mean it's a fact.

Some men who are obviously lying as they don't even agree about what they saw?

Each person sees things in their own way, I don't find it strange they didn't agree with a personal perception.

"We only completed a beginning"; "We leave YOU much that is un-done" ; "There are places to go beyond BELIEF" ; "For one of those who can remove one of truths protective layers"

If you don't understand that message folks (including you ArMaP) then you are blind.

I was never good at guessing other people's intentions, so I don't pretend to understand what other people say in cryptic messages. I never liked riddles either.

Be a real sceptic and don't just be sceptical of my scepticism.

As I said above, I always start by accepting the original version, unless it sounds too unlikely.

Do you want me to share your opinion? Show me clear facts, not opinions or things that prove nothing.

[fansongecho]

@ArMaP, I am still doing research on this topic, granted that 1 fake moon rock proves only that NASA can lie to citizens of other countries - if they can lie with a simple moon rock, what else have they lied about ??

//

@Pimander, hey bud, did you see this wiki-page - there is this on the page and I don't know if you have read the book that is mentioned -

"SNIP"
An early and influential book about the subject of a moon-landing conspiracy, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was self-published in 1976 by Bill Kaysing, a former US Navy officer with a Bachelor of Arts in English.[7] Despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing,[8] Kaysing was hired as a senior technical writer in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket.[9][10] He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company's Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963. Kaysing's book made many allegations, and effectively began discussion of the Moon landings being faked.[11][12] The book claims that the chance of a successful manned landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, and that despite close monitoring by the USSR, it would have been easier for NASA to fake the Moon landings than to really go there.[13][14]
"SNIP"

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


Cheers 

Fansongecho 

[ArMaP]

@ArMaP, I am still doing research on this topic, granted that 1 fake moon rock proves only that NASA can lie to citizens of other countries - if they can lie with a simple moon rock, what else have they lied about ??

In this case, the fake Moon rock was only found as fake on the museum.

The rock was given to an ex-Prime Minister of the Netherlands by the then American ambassador, not by NASA itself. After the death of the ex Prime Minister the rock was donated to the museum, where it was found to be fake. With that chain of events I cannot honestly say that NASA gave a fake Moon rock to the ex Prime Minister.

[zorgon]

Even if that's true it doesn't mean they didn't go to the Moon.

It has always been our contention from the beginning (our being John Lear and myself) that yes we went to the moon, but Apollo was a Hoax

We accept the fact that Lunar Orbiter took real photos of the moom

We accept the fact that Clementine Navy Mission was real and took real photos of the moon (and a distant earth, the picture that NASA enhanced and used in so many other photos as I have already shown numerous times.

We do NOT believe the Apollo ships ever made it to the moon...

My biggest issue is this... 

In all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags...  Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.

Yet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites

Then along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags... in fact most of the hills look slightly blurred out of focus.

There is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error Yeah I bet

So between the early 60's when we see the the LO jagged rocks and the early 70's when we see the rounded Apollo hills... who terraformed the Moon?

My second issue is the STARS  the fact that they claim they didn't see any  and we don't see any in the photos...

Yet on the NASA Astronomy picture of the day site NASA shows us a concept drawing of what the sky on Earth would look like IF we turned off the atmosphere  THIS ONE


If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice.

Now then Please explain to me how it is possible that you would see billions of stars and a small sun from Earth with no atmosphere  and yet see NO STARS when on the Moon with no atmosphere.

Well IF they didn't go that would explain it. They couldn't fake the stars because any amateur astronomer would have been able to spot any errors

Those two issues are to me the proof that the whole thing was staged. NASA never counted on us all having super computers so soon. 


There is one other point as well   continued....

[zorgon]

IF The Apollo program was filmed in a studio and the blacked out the sky like these shots from Building Nine at Langley







You would expect that since this was BEFORE we used green screens to do background in movies (they could have added real starts then though the angle of view from the moon might have been an issue) that if you enhanced those old photos the sky would not look correct.

Well just look at Hoagland images where the sky was not right, showing areas that he claims were proof of a glass dome..

But do we have Apollo photos that show object that night be spots from the studio not completely blocked out?

Yes... yes we do 

Now this is either an Alien Ship watching over them (which is what we first posted it as.. the "Peekaboo" class vessels...  or it is some object in the studio reflecting a little light that wasn't blacked out enough (like the objects in the pictures up top)

Apollo 14 AS14-66-9295



Close up  of object.



So this is NOT part of the Apollo craft... it is either an Alien ship or a studio artifact. It has too much detail to be a lens artifact



Then there is this artifact reflected in the helmet.. Many say 'Alien' but better explanation is studio artifact



Here is another one

Apollo 11  a11pan5913-16EvM



Close up

[zorgon]

Meanwhile back at Building 9...

It's ironic really  because when they filmed the 2005 movie about the Apollo mission they used the SAME studio at building 9, only this time they added the green screen instead of that ball and track model...



So lets have a look at the production photos


Re-creation of Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, surveying the landscape with a Hasselblad still camera in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D

This photo is actually found on several websites as being an actual photo from Apollo This is how "truth" gets shared

All suited up...


Director Mark Cowen instructs astronaut actors on the set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D.


Narrator/Producer/Writer Tom Hanks and Director Mark Cowen talk with an actor on the set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D


Overhead shot of astronaut actors on the Moon set of the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D


Re-creation of Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11, taking a photo of fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin with a Hasselblad still camera in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D

Oh LOOKY HERE  Those smooth Apollo Hills against a black starless sky 


Re-creation of Charles Duke, Apollo 16, taking a personal moment to leave a family photo on the moon in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D


Re-creation of Dave Scott (left) and James Irwin, Apollo 15, exploring and photographing the lunar surface in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D. Click to enlarge.


Re-creation of Dave Scott and James Irwin, Apollo 15, standing on the edge of Hadley Rille, a valley nearly a mile wide, in the IMAX 3D film Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D

[ArMaP]

In all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags...  Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.

Yet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites

Then along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags... in fact most of the hills look slightly blurred out of focus.

There is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error Yeah I bet

So between the early 60's when we see the the LO jagged rocks and the early 70's when we see the rounded Apollo hills... who terraformed the Moon?

I don't get it, are you saying that the jagged rocks and the rounded hills are real or are you saying the jagged rocks are true but the rounded hills are not?

Yet on the NASA Astronomy picture of the day site NASA shows us a concept drawing of what the sky on Earth would look like IF we turned off the atmosphere  THIS ONE


If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice.

Now then Please explain to me how it is possible that you would see billions of stars and a small sun from Earth with no atmosphere  and yet see NO STARS when on the Moon with no atmosphere.

Being visible to our eyes is one thing, appearing in a photo is a completely different thing.
Our eyes are able to show us the full Moon and the stars at the same time with no problems, but if you take a photo it will either show stars and an overexposed Moon or a well exposed Moon and no stars.

Well IF they didn't go that would explain it. They couldn't fake the stars because any amateur astronomer would have been able to spot any errors

Planetariums were invented a long time ago, it would be easy for them to create a planetarium in the studio to have stars, and the stars would match any time they would want.

[ArMaP]

So this is NOT part of the Apollo craft... it is either an Alien ship or a studio artifact. It has too much detail to be a lens artifact

What I find interesting in that image is the blue streak, as those appear in several photos, and not just in the sky, they also appear on the ground.

Then there is this artifact reflected in the helmet.. Many say 'Alien' but better explanation is studio artifact

That doesn't look reflected to me, to me it looks like something inside the helmet, seen through the visor on the area the light is hitting the shield more directly.

[Pimander]

It has always been our contention from the beginning (our being John Lear and myself) that yes we went to the moon, but Apollo was a Hoax

I think you're right.  Definitely in the case of Apollo 11.

We accept the fact that Lunar Orbiter took real photos of the moom

Right again.

We accept the fact that Clementine Navy Mission was real and took real photos of the moon (and a distant earth, the picture that NASA enhanced and used in so many other photos as I have already shown numerous times.

Agreed

We do NOT believe the Apollo ships ever made it to the moon...

Perhaps some un-manned ones made it.

In all the years we looked at anomalies in moon photos, all the terrain in those photos showed rugged terrain with sharp jagged peaks and rocky crags...  Not ONE of those showed snoothe rounded weathered hills.

Yes, because the Apollo pictures were faked on Earth.  OBVIOUSLY! 

Yet NASA claims the LO photos were used to pick the landing sites

The ones nobody went to you mean?

Then along come endless Apollo photos show ALL the hills in the background being smooth and rounded, no jagged peaks, no rock crags...

Oh shit, somebody noticed!!!

There is one set of images taken on two Apollo missions that shows the SAME hills... I believe NASA said it was an error Yeah I bet

The other error was not just hiring an unscrupulous actor.  Armstrong was not the right man to pull off a hoax like this.  He cracked and it is obvious to the trained eye.  In fact to the untrained eye it looks obvious.

Now nobody could accuse me of just believing anything.  I take a good look at things.  I know John Lear threw some nonsense out there.  But Apollo 11? Real?  Not a fuc4ing chance.  They didn't even try to do it.  If you believe it then stop kidding yourself.