• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Apollo hoax twist

FramerDave

Muse
FramerDave
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
820
Today I encountered a twist on the whole Apollo hoax story. I had only spoken to one other hoax believer of this variety before now.

Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.

I got busy and didn't have a chance to pursue it further, but something occurred to me while I was eating dinner. How is it that "they" were able to fake all the photos and footage so well that there is no discernible difference at all between the (fake)footage and photos from Apollo 11 and the later (real) footage from subsequent missions? Even today with technology nearly 40 years advanced it's virtually impossible to create CGI or other special effects that mirror reality to the smallest detail. Even the best never look quite right.

And how is it that the presumably faked rocks and dust samples had characteristics that were identical to those of samples returned later?

I can't wait to ask tomorrow. I'll post replies.
 
I have heard similar, often claims being that 14 was the first real one, or that 13 was, and because it nearly killed the crew they went back to faking it for 14-17.

Of course the main question to ask is if all the other missions were real, including Apollo 7-10. If they say yes,then ask why Apollo 11 couldn't have completed the 50,000 foot gap between the Apollo 10 mission's abort point and the landing?

ETA: you know I almost read the title as Apollo Hoax Twit.
 
Last edited:
FramerDave said:
Today I encountered a twist on the whole Apollo hoax story. I had only spoken to one other hoax believer of this variety before now.

Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.

I got busy and didn't have a chance to pursue it further, but something occurred to me while I was eating dinner. How is it that "they" were able to fake all the photos and footage so well that there is no discernible difference at all between the (fake)footage and photos from Apollo 11 and the later (real) footage from subsequent missions? Even today with technology nearly 40 years advanced it's virtually impossible to create CGI or other special effects that mirror reality to the smallest detail. Even the best never look quite right.

And how is it that the presumably faked rocks and dust samples had characteristics that were identical to those of samples returned later?

I can't wait to ask tomorrow. I'll post replies.
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it pretty well. People forget that even though we had the technology to get a rocket to the moon, the computer power that it takes to create CGI and other special video effects did not emerge until more than a decade later. Even the best special effects masters of today still can't create a video that is as good as the real thing, though some are pretty darn good at it.
ETA: Bolding mine
 
Last edited:
Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.
 
It occurred to me there was a post on the forum earlier in the month where I learned of a new probe to be sent to the moon next year. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3088563&postcount=19

Reality Believer in a quote from a linked article said:
Quote:
"We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags, he said.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to hear the CT's reactions to photographs of lunar landers that have been there for almost 40 years, and right where we left them.
 
Last edited:
What was the state of the art of special effects in 1969? 2001: A Space Oddysey? That film looks quite dated now, though it held its own for many years.
 
FramerDave said:
Their story goes that in order to meet Kennedy's challenge of getting to the moon before the end of the decade and before the Soviets to the finish line, Apollo 11 was faked. The other missions did happen and we did make it to the moon, but Apollo 11 was a fake.
Click to expand...


Well, that makes Pete Conrad one heck of a good sport. Imagine being the first man on the moon and being almost completely forgotten by history while Neil "I Never Left The Studio" Armstrong gets free drinks for the rest of his life.

On second thought, that's probably why they killed him and made it look like a motorcycle accident. They didn't want him to talk. In 1999.
 
Don't forget to ask him about the Russians. The Russians were in direct competition with the US in the race to the Moon. The russians also had spies in NASA. If we had faked the moon landing the Russian would have known and they wouldn't have thought twice about outting us. It being the cold war and everything.

Also what would have stopped the russians from faking thier own landing?
 
Of course if it weren't for the Apollo CTists, we wouldn't have such entertaining videos like this on YouTube:



Buzz Aldrin is even more of a hero to me now! :D
 
ConspiRaider said:
Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.
Click to expand...

HB's have a thing about Kennedy saying before this decade is out. In reality Apollo was publically announced in July 1960, before Kennedy was even elected, it had been signed off on by Eisenhower in Jan of 1960, and that was after a year and a half of study and work into it (from mid-1958.) NASA already had the date of Dec 1970 as the goal before they went to Kennedy, he was just confirming what they had already told him they could do!
 
Loss Leader said:
On second thought, that's probably why they killed him and made it look like a motorcycle accident. They didn't want him to talk. In 1999.
Click to expand...


Hey come on, those assassinations take time. Do you know how many levels of authorisation you have to go through before you can carry out an op like that? Ack, the red tape! I have nightmares about it to this day. Heck, we sent in our first draft of the JFK shooting plan for approval in the Spring of 1383.

-Gumboot
 
ConspiRaider said:
Kinda weird because Apollo 12 took place in November, 1969, and by my calendar that is still "before this decade is out".

Twoofers. Ya gotta love 'em. Or not.
Click to expand...


Additionally, the last day of the decade in which Kennedy made the speech was December 31, 1970. In common parlance we refer to "The '60s," but in fact all decades begin on January 1, __1, and end on December 31, ___0, just as the first day of the 20th Century was January 1, 1901, and the last day was December 31, 2000. The reason for this is that there is no Year 0 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar; being originally kept with Roman numerals, there couldn't be.

I recall reading somewhere that NASA was planning to emphasize this fact if the first successful landing had occurred in 1970.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Additionally, the last day of the decade in which Kennedy made the speech was December 31, 1970. In common parlance we refer to "The '60s," but in fact all decades begin on January 1, __1, and end on December 31, ___0, just as the first day of the 20th Century was January 1, 1901, and the last day was December 31, 2000. The reason for this is that there is no Year 0 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar; being originally kept with Roman numerals, there couldn't be.

I recall reading somewhere that NASA was planning to emphasize this fact if the first successful landing had occurred in 1970.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was Ted Sorenson's ace in the hole / fudge factor.
 
Great pictures, but I really cant wait till we see the pictures of the landing sites and flags.
Now that is really gonna be something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom