The Greatest Hoax of All Time?

Posted by on Aug 4, 2009 in Uncategorized

I watched this years ago and I must say it was pretty convincing. I had basically forgotten about the “Moon Landing Hoax” conspiracy theory until recently when I learned that NASA is preparing a trip to the moon in 2018.  What is odd to me about this new trip is the amount of time it will take them to prepare to make this trip happen and that it has been since 1972 since our last trip.  If we’ve already been there 6 times and 12 men have walked on the moon I would think we’d have a space station there by now, maybe even a colony? Watch the videos below and you be the judge.  I believe it’s about as convincing an argument as the scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming in the CBS podcast below.

Share

14 Comments

  1. Globatron
    August 5, 2009

    Funny thing about this post is that there were no comments but it drove the most traffic and the average viewer stayed several minutes today which is not normal. Was it the controversial title or the controversial content?

    What amazes me is how much proof there is to support the Hoax conspiracy and the lack of proof to negate those theories by the NASA spokesman.

    If this was indeed a hoax what would that mean? What would that do to the history of mankind? Would it just be another lie? How big a lie can we take?

    Reply
  2. Akbar Lightning
    August 5, 2009

    i wanted to find this completely erroneous, i wanted to have disdain for these people, but I found some of the evidence very convincing, believe it or not, in the words of Jack Pallance.

    i would like to argue against the ‘backlit’ evidence. the moons surface, and its dust, are most likely reflective, and there would be sufficient light, even in shadows, with the right exposure, those effects are not unbelievable.

    however, those images with the exact same hills and rocks are difficult to explain, as are the images with the etched cross-hairs.

    i am very sorry you have posted this globatron, because now i have to put down another prejudice, i have to admit that there is evidence to doubt even more about what i think about the universe. i think you will find logocentric very sympathetic to notions concerning government secrecy, and i am slowly accepting that there is a wide gulf between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’.

    this website is turning cookier by the minute, but we are following the lines of thought, and even though we might not like what we find, perhaps there is a point at which it will liberate us.

    akbar

    Reply
  3. Globatron
    August 5, 2009

    Yes, much of the evidence is indeed convincing. I’m glad you found that also. On top of this my brother bought it to my attention yesterday that on July 20th, 2009 on the 40th year anniversary of the moon landing the original recordings of the landing went missing and or were accidentally erased.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

    This news was barely a speck on the radar as I check daily via google news and somehow it escaped me or did not make the headlines.

    So my question remains,”If it is indeed a hoax, what would that mean for the history of mankind?” Funny thing is some I’ve talked to think it’s funny but don’t see the social/historical implications that I see in this as I personally believe this would be grounds for dismantling NASA and or worse. I worry how other countries would react to anything America says/does in the future if this was the case.

    Reply
  4. Akbar Lightning
    August 5, 2009

    ok homeboyz, here’s the buzz-killa:

    Reply
  5. Akbar Lightning
    August 5, 2009

    more buzz aldrin killers:

    this link (unable to embed) is a very convincing defense of the flag-waving issue:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

    this link is a problematic address of the running on the moon issue:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhkJ0qD42Fo

    problem with the moon running is that they ran slowly, then slowed the frame-rate, which is not how the conspiracy guys claimed it was done, according to the theory, they ran normally, then slowed down the rate, so the mythbusters did not adequately address this issue.

    Reply
  6. Globatron
    August 5, 2009

    Well those are cool to know that those can be proved true but the one hoax evidence that gets me the most is the manipulated cross-hairs on the photos and the lack of a blast crater. Plus the radiation belt they had to pass through to get to the moon with lack of any real protection from it. I definitely want it to be true. I just don’t think I could handle it if it was indeed a hoax.

    Reply
  7. Logocentric
    August 6, 2009

    i found the excerpt below to be an intriguing, if not a conclusive, piece of evidence. some of the narrator’s comments regarding the astronauts’ and nasa’s intentions in particular circumstances are speculative at best; and the correlation of flight data to specific film clips is not adequately verified. still, this segment has given me reason to question the authenticity of at least some of the film footage taken on the apollo missions. but i try to bear in mind that the presence of some deceit in filming does not necessarily mean that all of the footage was faked. and it does not mean that no one ever went to the moon; there could be other reasons why nasa would want to tightly control its filming.

    i agree, globatron, that the missing blast crater is troubling. as for the radiation belts, nasa seems to shrug that off pretty easily; while i’ve heard at least one former soviet cosmonaut say that the only reason russia never went to the moon was because the radiation belts would be lethal to humans.

    i also agree that the nasa spokesman in the documentary didn’t really provide any backup to his statements. his attitude was simply, we went there because i say we went there–i represent nasa; and anyone who suggests otherwise is not rational, not on the basis of evidence provided or refuted, but simply because they question the authoritative word of a government/science agency.

    Reply
  8. globatron
    August 7, 2009

    That video link above brings up some concerns I’ve never heard before Logocentric. I’d love to hear NASA explain that. Photo trickery. Truly sad. I surely hope these hoax theories are not true as I don’t think I could stomach it if it was indeed a hoax.

    What do you think it would do to the history of mankind? The history of our country if it was indeed a hoax?

    I personally could see it as a reason for other countries to try and dismantle our government and honestly I’d be fine with that as I would not want to call myself an American if it was indeed a hoax. I know that sounds drastic but the greatest achievement of mankind being a hoax by our government on all of mankind; I don’t see that being taken easily by other countries.

    Reply
  9. Akbar Lightning
    August 7, 2009

    i just watched that footage logocentric, that is some crazy shiiiiiiiiit!

    what next, will we find out that the earth is in fact flat!

    akbar

    Reply
  10. m4rcus
    August 7, 2009

    We all know the moon is made of cheese. The astronauts would have sunk right into the gooey goodness of the lunar queso.

    In all seriousness, NASA released supposed pictures of the lunar lander a few weeks ago:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31966131/ns/technology_and_science-space/

    I do wish the pics were a bit more detailed though. Hmmm.

    Reply
  11. Logocentric
    August 9, 2009

    i checked out the nasa pictures, m4rcus, and i certainly wasn’t able to make out a lunar lander. i thought it was helpful, though, of the article’s author to emphasize that the images “clearly show” the lander. can’t wait for the improved images. thanks for sharing the link.

    globatron, you raise a tough and interesting question about the consequences of revealing a hoax. it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that it is a hoax–though i’m not sure i believe the whole thing was faked. as with any event or experience, we get only a slice of the whole story. i suspect this is how any official admission or revelation of inconsistencies would play. but i don’t anticipate any “official” admissions of this kind. and as long as that’s the case, the prevailing wisdom that we’re each entitled to our opinion and that truth ultimately doesn’t matter will likely continue.

    Reply
  12. Globatron
    August 9, 2009

    The resolution of those photos are like looking at an 8bit video game in 1980. Pong maybe? In 2009? That’s their proof? I could draw that with charcoal in a day. Take a photo of it with my cell phone camera then email it to NASA and say look there’s the proof.

    It is nice seeing them at least trying to come up with some sort of proof versus dismissing all the hoax conspiracy concepts as just nut jobs having fun being nut jobs.

    I still wonder what this would mean for the future of mankind of this was indeed a hoax. To me this would be bigger than making up a prophet or developing some sort of stories for the world to live and die for. That would seem standard operation procedure for the history of humanity versus hoaxing 6 lunar landings.

    Reply
  13. Akbar Lightning
    August 9, 2009

    it seems a useful conclusion, due to all the evidence, concerning global warming, the space program, etc. that there is a set of secret data sets, secret knowledge, that does have an existential relevance to humankind, and that this veil of secrecy makes it important for citizens to acknowledge a kind of limitation in forming philosophical conclusions. this limitation, if acknowledged, if taken in as part of one’s philosophical paradigm, can be made into a known unknown, but this makes a class out of us, and that of course, forces us to acknowledge a relationship with power.

    akbar

    Reply
  14. Logocentric
    August 12, 2009

    “According to Rousseau. . . science is good for ‘the individuals,’ i.e., for ‘some great geniuses’ or ‘some privileged souls’ or ‘the small number of true philosophers,’ among whom he counts himself, but bad for the peoples’ or ‘the public’ or ‘the common men’ [the vulgar men]. Hence he attacked in the First Discourse, not science as such, but popularized science or the diffusion of scientific knowledge. The diffusion of scientific knowledge is disastrous not only for society but for science or philosophy itself; through popularization, science degenerates into opinion, or the fight against prejudice becomes itself a prejudice. Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret from the common man.”

    Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, p. 260.

    Reply

Leave a Reply