NEW Leaked Moon Landing Footage. Shows Hoax

[mudslag]

I know, I was referring to some other photos where the crosshairs on the camera lens actually appear behind some of the terrain features in the photos. There has never been an explanation for that.

As for the crosshairs, the camera had a glass plate with fine aluminum, crosshairs imbedded in the glass. When a very bright area over a crosshair was exposed, the bright light bled into the film, exposing the small area that was to be blocked by the crosshair, and therefore the crosshair disapeared. You can prove this by looking at all the photos where this happens. It never disappears behind any colored object, only white that is overexposed.

What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

if you did a 5 sec google search you could find the answer

[bob21]

Thats where paranoia comes in, Honestly the evidence is so overwhelming if your going to try to promote a wild conspiracy start by refuting this

[Subject Delta]

Thats where paranoia comes in, Honestly the evidence is so overwhelming if your going to try to promote a wild conspiracy start by refuting this

Yeah, because we have definitive proof, and footage that proves that the moon landers placed that object there... oops maybe not. There are other ways that could have been planted there. It is a piece of evidence, but it doesn't answer some of the other questions that are raised.

[mudslag]

Yeah, because we have definitive proof, and footage that proves that the moon landers placed that object there... oops maybe not. There are other ways that could have been planted there. It is a piece of evidence, but it doesn't answer some of the other questions that are raised.

What are those questions, because over the years pretty much all the questions have been answered. Just like your claim "There has never been an explanation" isnt true, it has been answered, you just seem to not accept it.

The problem is, people like you refuse to accept those answers. There is a guy over on Hardforums, that refused to believe that the Earth ISNT the center of the universe. He even insist on getting all his proof from one site, a crack pot religious site at that, claiming the Earth doesnt even move. Despite all the evidence that everyone is giving, he still believes 99.9999% of the world is behind the big conspiracy.

Asking questions is fine but not accepting answers out of some blind faith that everything is a conspiracy is just retarded.

[Azusa]

ok didn't read most of this topic but on how the myth busters kinda busted the conspiracy theory right?(the next part is kinda hard to word right now) They didn't seem to cover the part stating that the Van-Allan belts were impossible (at the time) for Humans to cross which if you know your nuclear testing history we managed to thicken?

[mudslag]

ok didn't read most of this topic but on how the myth busters kinda busted the conspiracy theory right?(the next part is kinda hard to word right now) They didn't seem to cover the part stating that the Van-Allan belts were impossible (at the time) for Humans to cross which if you know your nuclear testing history we managed to thicken?

Google is your friend

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm

Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)

The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).

(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and SI units like grays and sieverts - that measure different things, but roentgens, rems and rads turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)

Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.

Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.

Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.

According to NASA, none of the Apollo missions exceeded one roentgen of total dosage.

Along with plenty more links if thats not enough

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Oh hey, would you look at this.

A photo of the landing site, devices that were left there, and the footprint tracks the astronauts left!

Wait, NASA released this photo, it must be a fake.

[Subject Delta]

What are those questions, because over the years pretty much all the questions have been answered. Just like your claim "There has never been an explanation" isnt true, it has been answered, you just seem to not accept it.

The problem is, people like you refuse to accept those answers. There is a guy over on Hardforums, that refused to believe that the Earth ISNT the center of the universe. He even insist on getting all his proof from one site, a crack pot religious site at that, claiming the Earth doesnt even move. Despite all the evidence that everyone is giving, he still believes 99.9999% of the world is behind the big conspiracy.

Asking questions is fine but not accepting answers out of some blind faith that everything is a conspiracy is just retarded.

Watch the videos posted in the initial post, and figure out the questions for yourself. Seeing as you have obviously not even bothered watching the videos you are apparently the one with the closed mind, and not me. I view all evidence with an open mind, the mind that assumes that everything we get told by our governments is true is actually the one whom is retarded. In the general scale of things, I would put the moon landings somewhere in the middle of my scale, which I generally work out to be like this (1 being the most likely to be a conspiracy, and 5 the least):

1: Very compelling, obvious evidence of a conspiracy

2: Some gaps, but still a lot of evidence

3: Some evidence, but a lot of unanswered questions

4: A few shreds of conspiracy evidence exist, but most of them can be answered

5: No evidence for a conspiracy, or evidence to directly refute it exists

To give you an example I will pick a few events for which conspiracy theories are pretty rampant and place them where I think they fit on my scale

9/11 somewhere between 1 and 2, maybe 1.5

The moon landing, 3

JFK Assination, 3

TWA flight 800, 4

The Lockerbie bombing, Space Shuttle Challenger, 5

So despite your stupid attempt at slating me because you don't like the way I think, I am not a "crackpot" or a "conspiracy nut" I just analyse the evidence that I am given, whereas people like you who either can't think for themselves or are just government apologists call anyone who doesn't think like them a "nut". Tell me who the one is that really has a closed mind here.

[anarkhy]

Yeah man, we all know the moon is made of swiss cheese, but on the videos it appears to be rocks and dust. So the footage is FAKE!

[Astra.Xtreme]

lol at 9/11 being a "very obvious" conspiracy...

You can make anything into a conspiracy, but it just makes you a hippy 99% of the time.

Honestly, if you don't believe that we landed on the moon, get yourself a really damn powerful telescope, and go look at the stuff yourself. If that's not convincing enough, then you DO have some issues to work out with yourself.

[Solid Knight]

lol at 9/11 being a "very obvious" conspiracy...

You can make anything into a conspiracy, but it just makes you a hippy 99% of the time.

Honestly, if you don't believe that we landed on the moon, get yourself a really damn powerful telescope, and go look at the stuff yourself. If that's not convincing enough, then you DO have some issues to work out with yourself.

So true.

[mudslag]

Im 35 yrs old, Iv been down this moon landing hoax to many times. Iv seen all the major videos for the anti side, including the on in the OP and gone over what I believe to be the biggest questions and found answers for every one. If you still have unanswered questions, fine ask them. As you so pointed out, its you that is truly closed minded. I have to quote you again ""There has never been an explanation" in regards to the cross hairs. It took a 5 sec google search to see that it has been answered. Your claim that it hasnt been answered was completely false, that suggest you are either a tin foiler and are just going with the odd ball crowd because you like to rant "I dont believe my government". Or you are lazy and dont take the time to do any research on your own. It would have been different had you said "I dont believe the answer" but you didnt go down that road, so you obviously dont examine the evidence.

Claiming to believe in a hoax doesnt mean you are open minded. Open minded means you can openly view something without judgment, examine the evidence without a predetermined view and come to a conclusion. I did that already when I was younger. The thing about this conspiracy is that its 40 yrs old, no new questions have come out in the last 30 yrs. Every question is as old as the conspiracy itself and so are the answers.

Ask yourself this, after 40 yrs why has no evidence of any stage, material or even someone how can be confirmed to have worked on the project ever spoke up as a conspiracy. Better yet, chew on this. The moon landings happened during the cold war. An era that almost wiped out humanity as we know it. The Russians would have known if we didnt make it to the moon. All the spying and behind the scenes communications with them, how come they never spoke up? Something like that would have blown the credibility of the US. It was such a huge accomplishment for both the US and the world that something so unreal would have crushed the United States. Something like that is not something that would have been put on the back burner to be used later against us.

So if you are willing to keep ignoring all the answers that debunk to the conspiracy questions, then no I dont believe you to be open minded at all.

[Subject Delta]

lol at 9/11 being a "very obvious" conspiracy...

You can make anything into a conspiracy, but it just makes you a hippy 99% of the time.

Honestly, if you don't believe that we landed on the moon, get yourself a really damn powerful telescope, and go look at the stuff yourself. If that's not convincing enough, then you DO have some issues to work out with yourself.

Typical government sympathiser, just sling insults because you don't have anything else.

Im 35 yrs old, Iv been down this moon landing hoax to many times. Iv seen all the major videos for the anti side, including the on in the OP and gone over what I believe to be the biggest questions and found answers for every one. If you still have unanswered questions, fine ask them. As you so pointed out, its you that is truly closed minded. I have to quote you again ""There has never been an explanation" in regards to the cross hairs. It took a 5 sec google search to see that it has been answered. Your claim that it hasnt been answered was completely false, that suggest you are either a tin foiler and are just going with the odd ball crowd because you like to rant "I dont believe my government". Or you are lazy and dont take the time to do any research on your own. It would have been different had you said "I dont believe the answer" but you didnt go down that road, so you obviously dont examine the evidence.

Claiming to believe in a hoax doesnt mean you are open minded. Open minded means you can openly view something without judgment, examine the evidence without a predetermined view and come to a conclusion. I did that already when I was younger. The thing about this conspiracy is that its 40 yrs old, no new questions have come out in the last 30 yrs. Every question is as old as the conspiracy itself and so are the answers.

Ask yourself this, after 40 yrs why has no evidence of any stage, material or even someone how can be confirmed to have worked on the project ever spoke up as a conspiracy. Better yet, chew on this. The moon landings happened during the cold war. An era that almost wiped out humanity as we know it. The Russians would have known if we didnt make it to the moon. All the spying and behind the scenes communications with them, how come they never spoke up? Something like that would have blown the credibility of the US. It was such a huge accomplishment for both the US and the world that something so unreal would have crushed the United States. Something like that is not something that would have been put on the back burner to be used later against us.

So if you are willing to keep ignoring all the answers that debunk to the conspiracy questions, then no I dont believe you to be open minded at all.

I haven't ignored any evidence, I appreciate that some of the moon landing conspiracy ideas have no merit, but there are some things that have never really been explained, the fact that not all factors of a conspiracy don't fit doesn't immediately make the whole thing wrong or right. I don't see you, or anyone else coming up with a valid explanation as to how the astronauts passed through the van allen belt unharmed, despite the fact that to this day NASA are still looking at ways to mitigate the risk for future space travel, and I have done my research on that one, yet you don't bother answering that one because it doesn't fit into your narrow minded view of things through the eyes of a government sympthiser.

It is quiet amusing really that you keep calling me narrow minded, yet you seem to ignore the most awkward questions yourself.

[bob21]

Typical government sympathiser, just sling insults because you don't have anything else.I don't see you, or anyone else coming up with a valid explanation as to how the astronauts passed through the van allen belt unharmed, despite the fact that to this day NASA are still looking at ways to mitigate the risk for future space travel, and I have done my research on that one, yet you don't bother answering that one because it doesn't fit into your narrow minded view of things through the eyes of a government sympthiser.

It is quiet amusing really that you keep calling me narrow minded, yet you seem to ignore the most awkward questions yourself.

Google is your friend

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm

Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)

The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).

(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and SI units like grays and sieverts - that measure different things, but roentgens, rems and rads turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)

Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.

Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.

Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.

According to NASA, none of the Apollo missions exceeded one roentgen of total dosage.

Along with plenty more links if thats not enough

Allready debunked on the last page by another NWO Disinformation Agent :laugh:

[Subject Delta]

That still doesn't explain why they seem to still think that it is such a big risk, and are spending a load of money on research if the problem could have been negated so easily by the moon landings with the comparatively primitive technology they had in the 1960s and 70s. Not that I said it made space travel impossible anyway, it just seems like there is something missing.

[cabron]

Can someone explain me why I have to believe in the landing on the moon when in the footer video from NASA you can clearly see the american flag moving like there was air and atmosphere in the moon. Could someone explain this?

[Astra.Xtreme]

Typical government sympathiser, just sling insults because you don't have anything else.

My comment had clearly nothing to do with government and/or sympathizing with them....

And I can "sling" insults because you don't have any of your facts straight, and have no proof of anything. All you are doing is throwing around a bunch of what-ifs.

Like I said, you can make a conspiracy over anything, but YOU ARE WRONG until you prove it otherwise. Sorry.

[GreenMartian]

Can someone explain me why I have to believe in the landing on the moon when in the footer video from NASA you can clearly see the american flag moving like there was air and atmosphere in the moon. Could someone explain this?

There was a Mythbusters episode on the moon landing.

Here's the flag part:

You can see that it was moving because there was no air in the atmosphere.

And here's the rest of the results

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode-104-nasa-moon-landing

[Astra.Xtreme]

Can someone explain me why I have to believe in the landing on the moon when in the footer video from NASA you can clearly see the american flag moving like there was air and atmosphere in the moon. Could someone explain this?

The radiation(s) from the sun exert forces that the moon isn't shielded from. Even light can push something in high enough quantity, though probably not a huge factor here.

[BigBoobLover]

i am stil lupset that a company like grumman who helped us land on the moon was basically allowed to go out of business

Go out of business??? Huh? They merged with Northrop. Ever heard of Northrop Grumman?

[Subject Delta]

Can someone explain me why I have to believe in the landing on the moon when in the footer video from NASA you can clearly see the american flag moving like there was air and atmosphere in the moon. Could someone explain this?

You have to believe everything you are told, otherwise you are a "nut" didn't you realise that? Having an opposing opinion to an official government story is frowned upon by most of this forum's members :rolleyes:

The radiation(s) from the sun exert forces that the moon isn't shielded from. Even light can push something in high enough quantity, though probably not a huge factor here.

Wow, talk about getting our facts straight, that has nothing to do with it. It was caused by the transfer of kinetic energy when the flagpole was inserted into the ground, the lack of atmosphere on the moon meant there was no air resistance which meant the flag took longer than it normally would to stop moving. If anything, the radiation from the sun is more likely to affect the astronauts and the equipment than objects like flags. Funny that you lambast me for not "having the facts" then post something like that.

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

If they faked it then how do they have Rocks and material from the moon that exhibit properties not found here on earth?

[majortom1981]

Go out of business??? Huh? They merged with Northrop. Ever heard of Northrop Grumman?

PRetty much went out of business. They closed calverton and greatly greatly reduced the bethpage facilities and fired all of the grumman staff. So they only merged the name pretty much. (my whole family pretty much worked their from admin secrataries to plant workers , my grandfather helped build the models of the f-14 to show to the navy).

[Subject Delta]

If they faked it then how do they have Rocks and material from the moon that exhibit properties not found here on earth?

Landing craft can gather rocks you don't need a Human to do it. I could use that same logic to say that because we have rock samples from Mars, Humans must have landed on Mars as well.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Wow, talk about getting our facts straight, that has nothing to do with it. It was caused by the transfer of kinetic energy when the flagpole was inserted into the ground, the lack of atmosphere on the moon meant there was no air resistance which meant the flag took longer than it normally would to stop moving. If anything, the radiation from the sun is more likely to affect the astronauts and the equipment than objects like flags. Funny that you lambast me for not "having the facts" then post something like that.

You act like the moon surface is 100% motionless at all times, in which you need to go pick up a physics book if you believe that. Yes, you are correct that the kinetic energy takes much longer to transfer, but there are many other factors such as electrostatic energy and external radiation that can and do cause movement.