The Moon Landings was a delibrate hoax

When I was having my college education, I remember how me and several of my friends were all really looking forward of seeing history being made before our very eyes. We had visions of Spacecraft holidays to far-off exotic destinations throughout the Solar Systems, and I must admit the Astronauts themselves had the type of media coverage suited to current celebrities. Then something happened to my thoughts whilst I was watching this endless coverage, it seemed to me that whilst the actual landing was taking place it looked completely professionial in a certain way.
The basis understanding of this fraud was that television signals and radio waves from say London to Manchester was not even good, but this signal of The Moon to the ABC channel was cyrstal clear. That is sign of a hoax, and the Moon landings of 1969 was the cataylst of me becoming a frequent follower of conspricarcy.

Ok i will take the bait.

The common consensus is the footage was very poor. The woo would usually say the TV was so bad because it was done on purpose so people couldn't see to much. There are of course reasons why the footage was poor but it has nothing to do with technology of the time. Simply put it was a trade off which took into account space as in room for equipment in and on the LM, bandwidth, power and time. To say the footage was "crystal clear" is just plain rubbish it was very poor. Look at the footage from the command and service module, now that's better but i wouldn't say "crystal clear". Reason for this is the the CM had more room and more power with better antenna arrays to transmit a signal of higher quality.

Later missions used high gain antennas from the surface which took around half an hour to set up. People wanted to see mans first steps and not have to wait till they had been there for a quarter of 11's allotted EVA time before they saw anything.

You must be the first person ive ever come across that has said the TV was good.

The first satellite television signal was relayed from Europe to the Telstar satellite over North America in 1962. The pictures were fine so to say in 1969 London to Manchester was not even good is rubbish.

My argument is the fact of the picture quality of the other Moon Missions, they were extremely well-made. During that Era no digital style of television was created.

Lillian wrote:My argument is the fact of the picture quality of the other Moon Missions, they were extremely well-made. During that Era no digital style of television was created.

Go on a Apollo belivers forum and a hoax belivers forum and make your case the TV was crystal clear. Neither group will agree. Normal TV like BBC was far superior in quality.

Im watching some footage from Apollo 17 on DVD and if normal TV programs looked like that on your set in 1972 you should have called the repair man. The contrast goes up and down. The picture is grainy. If anything moves quickly you get that rainbow smearing of colour because they only used 1 tube where on Earth 3 would be used. The colours are anything but bright apart from when they freak out. The flag looks like its moving but when you look closer you can see its the camera just cant hold the picture together and its the lines of colour.

Apart from the people who argue with everything i say for the sake of it i think you will be hard pushed to find some to agree the pictures were Crystal clear.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm

Well here is another link on this topic, and decide that more and more people are deciding for themselves that The Moon landing were a huge Hoax. It was the 60' whilst all this mission was being developed and it the real reason for this situation was the fact that The Moon Mission was a propoganda coup because the Cold War was still running. Yes, the Russian will claim that their satellites were following the craft all the way to The Moon, but remember this a lot of the agents were double agents who were paid with extra US dollars.

http://books.google.com/books?id=N1Gcfdj81T4C&dq=bill+kaysing+we+never+went+to+the+moon&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=D1bGStiQI8K2jAft59Q5&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I have enclosed a Internet book by Bill Kaysing who was very informed about the Moon missions, and this is the book which really opened the minds of all people devoted to hearing truth-matters.



Kaysing asserted that during his tenure at Rocketdyne he was privy to documents pertaining to the Mercury, Gemini, Atlas, and Apollo programs, arguing that one does not need an engineering or science degree to determine that a hoax was being perpetrated. Even before July 1969, he had "a hunch, an intuition, ... a true conviction" and decided that he didn't believe that anyone was going to the moon (Kaysing 2002:7). Kaysing wrote a book entitled We Never Went to the Moon, which was self-published in 1974, listing Randy Reid as a coauthor (Plait 2002:157). It was republished in 2002 by Health Research Books, with no coauthor listed. In his book, Kaysing introduced arguments which he said proved the moon landings were faked.

Claims in the book and subsequent sources include:

NASA lacked the technical expertise to put a man on the moon.
The absence of stars in lunar surface photographs. (Kaysing 2002:20,21,22,23,24)
The film used by astronauts on the moon should have melted due to the supposed high levels of radiation.[citation needed]
Unexplained optical anomalies in the photographs taken on the moon. (Kaysing 2002:23,25)
The undulating flags seen in video clips seem incompatible with a vacuum.[citation needed]
The absence of blast craters beneath the lunar modules.[citation needed] Their rocket engines should have blasted away tons of moon dust in the final seconds of descent.[citation needed]
Kaysing also claimed that NASA staged both the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident, deliberately murdering the astronauts on board. He suggested that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence. A vocal advocate of conspiracy theories, Kaysing believed there is a high level conspiracy involving the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies to brain wash the American public, poison their food supply and control the media. [3] He also implied that the death of NASA safety inspector Thomas Ronald Baron in a traffic accident with a train a week after he testified before the United States Congress, and the disappearance of his 500-page report, was not an accident. He was also a participant in the Fox Broadcasting Company documentary Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? [4], which aired on February 15, 2001.

In 1997, Kaysing filed a lawsuit against astronaut Jim Lovell for libel when Lovell called Kaysing's claims "wacky" in the San José Metro News, July 25-31, 1996.[5]

The guy is wacky. His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it's something everyone in this country should be proud of. — James Lovell

The case was dismissed in 1999 (Plait 2002:173) following the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by San Francisco attorney John Hardy, representing James Lovell. The judgment was affirmed on appeal on First Amendment grounds. As a result of Kaysing's claims he believed there was a conspiracy against him.[6][7][8] One such event was Price Stern Sloan Publishers' decision not to publish his book, after paying a small advance in exchange for the manuscript. The editor's comments:

I'm afraid we disavow it. You need to read it objectively and critically and perhaps ORGANIZE IT. As it is it wanders all over the landscape. Several interesting paragraphs but they don't hold together, link together. You've also wandered from third to first person. It needs a lot of work. You don't really have a manuscript here - seemed more like random notes about what you WOULD write about if you got around to it. What I mean, it reads like notes to the AUTHOR.

Kaysing has wondered why the publisher didn't want to have anything more to do with the book (Kaysing 2002:74, 85).

Somebody give this man a medal please, or some sort of reward to value his bravery. I know he is dead but something can be done to honour this man in death.

Here is one gentleman called Bart Sibrel who has become a new torchbearer for truth seekers, and it was disgusting he got attacked by that terrible Aldrin man. Apparently he was not even charged for the attack he did to Sibrel, because Aldrin if charged would of 'spilled the beans'.



What a creepy looking man Buzz Aldrin looks like, terrible behaviour. Has the face of a mafia boss and a pornographer, he looks reptillian to me.

Dealings with Apollo astronauts
Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his stalking tactics used in attempts to obtain footage of them as he challenges them that the moon landings were a hoax.[1][2][3] He approaches all three astronauts of Apollo 11 at different times and also interviews Eugene Cernan, Alan Bean, Alfred Worden and John Young. In each case, the astronauts are dismayed at the nature of the interview and each ends the interview shortly after Sibrel challenges them about the authenticity of the NASA footage. Where some interviews are in the astronauts' homes, others are at public appearances and in the case of Michael Collins, the setting is outside of a supermarket.

One incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon. When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief." [4] Seventy-two year old Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw and the incident was captured on video. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and did not actually injure Sibrel, and so no charges were filed but the incident was covered in the media.[5]

[edit] Claims
Main article: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
In the 2001 film, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, Sibrel made several claims that he believed show that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. The film covers other claims made by conspiracy theorists, such as the lighting on the moon and the need for protection from radiation within and beyond the Van Allen Belts.

In his film, Sibrel displayed unedited NASA footage that allegedly revealed several serious flaws in NASA's account of Apollo 11's journey to the moon. Sibrel claims to have spent considerable time and effort in going through all of the NASA-sourced Apollo footage that he could get his hands on — having ordered it himself directly from NASA. In addition to the common films which have been made more readily available to the public, a mislabeled reel from the Johnson's Space Center was also among the footage. There were over 20 takes from the Apollo 11 mission, including the lunar orbit, descent, docking, and ascent — but one sticks out to believers in a moon landing hoax as the most damning. It is the unedited footage of Aldrin inside the CSM, filming what is purported to be a distant Earth in deep space "about 130,000 miles out" through the 'Number 1 Window". However, later on when the camera pulls back through 'deep space', a supposed floodlight which was not turned on before the zoom in to the Earth, now appears on the upper left side of the frame during the zoom out. This footage is cited by Sibrel as evidence that the astronauts were deceitfully simulating deep space by claiming to have the camera fully up against and "blocking the window" — when in fact the camera was never anywhere near the window. Sibrel claims the Earth depicted in the footage cannot be the real globe of the Earth viewable in the CSM's small window, especially at the sharp angle, because the Earth remains constantly in full view during the zoom out — in the picture no matter how badly the camera moves or shakes.[6][7] Jay Windley, an amateur astronomer, defending Project Apollo alleges that the "secret" NASA footage Sibrel uses is actually widely available and merely shows the Astronauts practicing for an upcoming live telecast.[8]

Sibrel believes that the technology of the United States during the era was behind that of the Soviets. He points to a supposed "five-to-one superiority" in man-hours in space held by the Soviets over the US as well as highlighting several Soviet space firsts.[9] The "five-to-one" figure has been strongly challenged by Jay Windley, on his Clavius website, a site dedicated to the debunking of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations claiming that the Americans had a clear lead in man hours in space by the time Apollo 11 was launched.[10] The relevance of some of the Soviet 'firsts' in relation to a landing of the moon has also been called into question by Windley.[11]

Sibrel has also stated the life-threatening events that occurred during the Apollo 13 mission were actually manufactured by the government to force people to pay attention to the space program. Sibrel also participated in the controversial Fox Television Network special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? In it, Sibrel stated that, "I'd bet my life that we never went to the moon." The British stage actress Anne Tonelson narrates A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, while Sibrel appears in perhaps his most controversial film: Astronauts Gone Wild — An Investigation into the Authenticity of the Moon Landings.

[edit] Criticism
This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole.

Sibrel's claims of a lunar landing hoax have been widely refuted and laid to rest by the scientific and space science communities.

Jim McDade, writing in the Birmingham News, characterized A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon as "full of falsehoods, innuendo, strident accusations, half-truths, flawed logic and premature conclusions."[12] According to McDade, the "only thing new and weird" in the 47-minute film is the claim that the video views of Earth were actually filmed through a small hole to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit.[12] "Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup," says McDade.[12]

Aldrin's attorney, Robert O'Brien, says that Sibrel has a history of stalking other former astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, and Al Worden. Buzz Aldrin's wife Lois summed up her feelings about Bart Sibrel: "He said things I can't repeat. He was not a nice man, and it really upset Buzz a lot."

Current advances in telescopic technology will shortly for the first time enable independent observers to analyse in detail the actual moon landing sites. Sibriel has been contacted as to his actions once such observations become possible. Should his stance be proved incorrect he has been requested to issue an immediate and unreserved apology to those individuals he has derided.

http://sibrel.com/sibrel/



Here is a footage of the vile attack.

Bart Sibrel lol, just watch this.



Not only is it a total crock Sibrel claims it as his own work when all he did was stole it hook line and sinker from James Colliers "was it only a paper Moon". The original hoax goes back to Ralph René who fooled Collier.

A vile attack on Sibrel Lillian calls it lol. I have never met or conversed with anyone from either camp before Lillian who didnt think Sibrel deserved a smack up the chops. Sibrel lured Aldrin to a hotel under false pretences saying he was making a kids TV show. When Aldrin realised what was going on he left the Hotel room. While checking out with his daughter Sibrel blocked Aldrin's exit and started to bad mouth him. Sibrel ambushed Aldrin again outside the hotel where we can hear Aldrin say "will someone get this man away from me". We see Aldrin's daughter run away as he had told her to do for her safety and yet this Lillian thinks its Aldrin that's being aggressive lol.

Sibrel then goes on to call Aldrin all sorts of things and got a smack in the gob. The whole idea was to piss people off that much over years and months that they reacted in such a way so Sibrel could sell a DVD. Jesus Lil you are easily taken for a ride.

Sibrel then goes on to call Aldrin all sorts of things and got a smack in the gob.

The only unfortunate thing about this is Sibrel got exactly what he wanted. Do you hear him say "did you get that on film"? Thats exactly what Sibrel wanted, he hounded these men and their friends and family's for years even getting arrested for it. Then when he brings out his DVD he never shows why Aldrin punched him or Ed Mitchel kicked him in the butt etc.

Calling someone a liar,a cheat and a fraud is fighting talk and its seems only Lillian would disagree with that as the courts and public opinion dont.

Handbag is so disgusted with Sibrels actions he has decided that Sibrel is a government agent lol.

As for Kaysing well he couldn't keep his story straight from one money making venture to the next. However one simple point should show anyone with a brain either Kaysing was knowingly lying or he was a fool. Kaysing claimed theres no stars in the Apollo photographs because NASA forgot to paint them in. Enough said on Kaying i feel.

shove yur moon hoax up your lax droike