CBS LITERALLY FAKED THE MOON LANDING

[spooked911]

historic footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_sWmD6N


You're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

:)

[LARED]

1. I conclude

you are the best entertainment on DU.

[jakeXT]

2. link doesn't work

[SDuderstadt]

4. OMIGOD!!

"They" already got to Spooked's link! "They'll" stop at nothing to "suppress the truth"! Whatever shall we do, Spooked?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

5. sorry for the bad link-- see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_sWmD6NvMY

It's simply historic CBS footage

[spooked911]

6. the point is that CBS "simulated" the moon landing as it happened!

this is not a theory-- it is fact!

[jberryhill]

7. Just like you are doing with your life /nt

[spooked911]

8. you are wrong

you don't fucking know me

nice distraction from the topic, though.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Just like you don't know the countless 9/11 witnesses...

you judge all the time. You've made yourself fair game here with your fucking goofy nonsense.

[NutmegYankee]

10. Everyone judges you.

We just don't post it often.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

42. Do you not understand that the coverage was all "simulated" . . . . ???

[procopia]

12. The knee-jerk reactions

on this thread are very telling. Funny.

[SDuderstadt]

13. You mean to a totally misleading OP?

The fact that CBS broadcast an animation (and made clear that it was an animation) of the actual moon landing because, of course, there were no cameras there to record, doesn't mean the "CBS faked the moon landing", which implies we never landed on the moon. That's why Spooked is getting his ass handed to him from every poster, except for you.

[procopia]

14. Then why your reaction

to a post about simulated (fake) moon landing? It wasn't misleading at all, you were just mislead by your own preconceptions. You can try to distort what just happened, but it's clear that you just got your ass handed to you. It was amusing to watch.

[SDuderstadt]

16. "CBS LITERALLY FAKED THE MOON LANDING"

You don't think that's a misleading headline? Did we actually land on the moon? Yes. So, the moon landing was not "faked". Was CBS' coverage a simulation/animation? Yes, and they labeled it that way. Since they didn't label the coverage as actual, you can hardly claim it was faked. All in all, a very misleading headline designed to convey a very different impression. The dishonesty of the "truth movement" is stunning.

[procopia]

18. So you jumped to conclusions

without even watching the video. That should be a lesson to you.

[SDuderstadt]

19. No, it should be a lesson to "truthers" to quit using dishonest tactics...

Somehow, I don't think they'll take the hint.

[spooked911]

20. what did I write that was dishonest?

they faked it!

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude...

the "moon landing" wasn't "faked". It actually happened. CBS also labeled the approach and touchdown as they broadcast an animation (for good reason, as there was no way to film it live), so instead of honestly making that clear and saying something like "CBS simulated/animated the COVERAGE of the moon landing, you dishonestly write it like the moon landing itself was fake. If a crime drams "re-enacted" the JFK assassination, does that mean it "faked" the actual assassination?

You can play all innocent if you like here, but it's clear your intent was to deceive, which is to be expected from you. So, why don't you go on the record here? Do you believe the US actually landed on the moon, Spooked?

[snooper2]

53. What do you do for a living?

still waiting for an answer...


Oh, and you missed that one mic under your home...it's still live :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

32. No, you're defending Spook's blatant...

dishonesty but I've come to expect no less from you.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. This is now the moon forum!

whatever happened to 9/11? LOL!

[spooked911]

21. well, the moon landings set a certain, say, precedent for 9/11

there is more on my blog, if you're interested

[SDuderstadt]

23. Jesus Fucking Christ, Spooked....

Again, I ask. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your nonsense.

[Ter]

89. Is there any conspiracy theory that even YOU WILL embrace?

Pot, meet kettle.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Yeah, ones that have actual concrete evidence...

They're called conspiracies. Duh.

[jakeXT]

17. As far as I know the CBS simulation inspired the movie Capricorn One

The Making of CAPRICORN ONE
A retrospective look at writer-director Peter Hyam's sci-fi conspiracy yarn.

By Frederick C. Szebin April 20, 2000

...


'I grew up with parents who believed if it was in newspapers, it was true,' says Hyams. 'I was part of the generation that believed if it was on television, it was true. I remember while working at CBS one day, looking at the monitor and thinking, 'Wait a minute! Everybody is looking at the simulation. Suppose you did a really good simulation?' The NASA moon program was a story with only one camera. Normally, all big stories have tons and tons of cameras for thorough coverage. Not so with the moon shots. It all had to be done from the studio. That raised questions in my mind about how the story could be presented. The whole Watergate backlash kicked in. I once said that I owe my career to H.R. Haldemann.'
Due to the nature of his work at CBS, Hyams had accessibility to vast amounts of NASA research, such as mission books and command module schematics from which to draw inspiration. He began writing the script around 1974-1975, with plans of developing a feature film that he would direct himself. By that time, Hyams was established in television and feature films as a writer, director and producer on such projects as T.R. Baskin, Goodnight My Love and the police drama Busting, featuring future Capricorn One star Elliott Gould. But in the mid-1970s, he directed Fat Chance with Natalie Wood and Michael Caine, a movie considered so bad that it was barely released under the title Peepers, and nearly put Hyams out of business as a filmmaker of any kind. What saved him and his burgeoning project was friend Paul Lazarus, producer of Michael Crichton's Westworld and its sequel, Futureworld.

...

http://www.mania.com/making-capricorn-one_article_20701.html

[defendandprotect]

43. Interesting story -- !!!

and I've never seen all of Capricorn 1 --
I keep tuning in near the end of the movie. I do like the ending!
I'll be interested at some point to see how they try to convince these
guys to go along with the fake.

[jakeXT]

45. Someone put it on google

I don't know if it's available on sites like hulu or joost with better quality


I saw it once and can't remember much.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-364883774856478814&ei=DENnSumBEoT02gLNuaE0&q=capricorn+%C3%B3ne&hl=en

[William Seger]

24. Fuzzy thinking

From your blog:

> "Due to the speed of light limitation on the 2-way communications with the Earth, some 3 seconds are missing between an AstroNOT speaking and his hearing the beginning of the Houston chap's reply."

But we are hearing a recording made in Houston, not on the Moon, so there should not be any 3-second delay for Houston responding to an astronaut. A recording made in Houston would record the astronaut's transmission after it had already taken 1.5 seconds to get from the moon, and it would record Houston responding immediately, not 1.5 seconds later when that transmission got back to the moon. So for a recording made in Houston, there should only be a 3-second delay when an astronaut replies to Houston, and I couldn't find any instance on this tape where that wasn't the case.

So my conclusion is that your "moon hoax" analysis is about as worthless as your "no plane" analyses.

[AZCat]

25. Kudos to you for looking at his blog.

I haven't the stomach to do it myself.

[William Seger]

26. Yeah, I know, but...

... it's like trying to drive past a roll-over accident without looking.

[Realityhack]

35. I agree with AZCat.

I tried once... couldn't complete a paragraph without my head hurting from teh stupidz.

[AZCat]

49. I've read several posts before.

But you're right - it starts to really make your head hurt. It particularly became a problem when spooked911's "friend" "anonymousphysicist" (or whatever his handle is) began posting.

[spooked911]

28. yes-- I know the truth is disturbing

but eventually we all have to face it

[defendandprotect]

44. I agree . . . and there's probably a cover story for it as well . . .

let's see . . . the dangers we faced from Russia and communism?

[AZCat]

50. Logical fallacy.

Just because the truth is sometimes disturbing and your blog is sometimes disturbing doesn't mean your blog in any way resembles the truth.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

30. As usual, you are wrong

You're supposed to be finding an example where an astronaut responds to something Houston says in less than 3 seconds. There is no such thing at 1:50, or anywhere else that I heard. Armstrong is describing what he's doing, says he's going to switch the controls back to auto, Houston immediately responds "Roger," then a second or two later Armstrong says, "OK, looks like it's holding," which is certainly not a response to "Roger."

But as usual, your severe paranoia prevents you from coming to grips with the simple fact that you are wrong -- it's really the PTB out to get you and hide the horrible truth you've uncovered, never mind that what you're claiming is just nonsense. You need professional help to deal with this issue, Spooky.

[SDuderstadt]

31. What do you expect from someone...

who can deny with a straight face that the headline of his OP is grossly dishonest?

[spooked911]

38. At 1:50+, Armstrong does answer the "roger" in less than 3 seconds,

and there are plenty of examples of rapid exchanges.

However, to be perfectly fair, in basically every exchange, Houston is simply responding to Apollo, and there are no clear examples (that I heard) of Houston asking Apollo a question and Apollo responding. So it is ambiguous at best.

And as far as the advice-- I know what you are and I will leave it at that.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Hey, Spooked....

just so you know, I have to be in Ohio on business on July 31st, so I will be flying into Indianapolis on the 30th and staying with family and driving over to Ohio. Yes, that's right, Spooked. We share something in common...we're both Hoosiers. I was born in Beech Grove.

Since I am already going to be there, I was thinking that, despite our obvious differences, we should do the neighborly thing and actually meet while I am there. Now, I don't want to do something as risky as ask you for your address here as I respect your privacy. However, I think I can find your house okay without the address, but I want to make sure I am right first. Is this a picture of your house? I saw it and said right away, "Oh, yeah...that HAS to be Spooked's house!".

[spooked911]

46. oh yeah, nothing creepy about that

at all

[SDuderstadt]

48. Yeah, well...

I can't help it if you live in a creepy house, dude. I wouldn't expect you to see the humor of this, though.

[spooked911]

51. well, the picture doesn't even show up

I assumed it was some sort of joke though.

But the overall way you breezily say you know where I live is creepy-- as my identity and where I live is supposed to be secret. And clearly certain people would have no trouble finding out who I am and where I live.

[SDuderstadt]

52. It's a picture of a tin foil house, Spooked...

that's the joke...I'm sure the reason you can't see the picture is a huge plot by the same people who put the mini-nukes in the WTC, faked all the planes on 9/11, ''faked'' the moon landing and have devoted their lives to sending you secret messages on your cereal boxes.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

40. No, it is not ambiguous

Armstrong says he is switching back to automatic control, Houston acknowledges that, Armstrong says "it looks like it's holding." There is absolutely no reason to think he waited for Houston's "Roger" before saying that. And anyway, your description of the supposed "missing gap" which I quoted makes it quite clear that you simply got it backwards which way we should hear any delay. Nothing ambiguous about that mistake, either.

> And as far as the advice-- I know what you are and I will leave it at that.

Everything you "know" seems to originate between your own ears or from mentally ill people like AP.

[spooked911]

47. curious what you think of the LROC photo of the Apollo 14 site

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jul_lroc.htm

do you honestly think they could see astronaut footprints-- or that astronaut footprints are 6 feet wide?

[William Seger]

55. No, it can't "resolve" individual footprints

... but apparently when the sun is at a low angle, it can "see" the path the astronauts left through the dust as a slightly darker area. That could either be the result of the surface dust being a lighter color than the underlying rock, or it might just be the cumulative effect of lots of small, unresolved shadows of the footprints.

Obviously, moon-hoax crackpots don't have any choice but to declare the photos as fake, but the reasons you give on your blog are as unconvincing as the crap you write about 9/11 plane videos. I don't see any reason to believe the moon photos or the 9/11 videos are fake, and I do believe there's a perfectly good reason why there are exactly zero qualified photoanalysts who agree with you.

[spooked911]

56. by "qualified", you mean doesn't believe in conspiracies

and I'm sure you did a thorough survey of all photoanalysts to arrive at your conclusion.

But dude, keep believing all the official fairy tales. I'm sure the PTB love you for it.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Well, why don't you name...

all the qualified photoanalysts that believe YOUR bullshit, Spooked? I'm certain their numbers are legion.

Or, do you think the ''PTB'' have ''gotten'' to all of them? I know, I know...you wouldn't be so paranoid if it weren't for all those people who are out to get you.

[William Seger]

60. I mean someone who actually knows the subject

... which is very complicated, but which you think is so easy that even ignorant idiots like Simon Shack can do it. "No-planers" and "moon hoaxists" don't even understand simple perspective, and they think that every imaging and compression artifact is evidence of fakery. Ironically, the result is that virtually every "proof" they come up with is actually evidence of authenticity. If the moon photos and 9/11 videos are fake, then "no-planers" and "moon hoaxists" have "out-smarted" the fakers by being too dumb to realize how well they were faked.

There are exactly zero qualified photoanalysts who publicly agree with you. I'm sure you don't have trouble imagining that there are lots who privately "know" you are right, but they're all either in on it or too intimidated by the PTB to come forward, huh. Unfortunately, imaginary supporters are about as useful to your cause as imaginary friends.

[spooked911]

61. just curious how you surveyed all "qualified photoanalysts"--

you google that? Or what?

The simple fact is the "footprint tracks" are illogical given the various parameters of the situation.

[William Seger]

86. No need to google anything

If there was a single qualified photoanalyst who publicly agreed with you, you'd have it all over your blog.

> The simple fact is the "footprint tracks" are illogical given the various parameters of the situation.

The simple fact is that you are not qualified to pontificate on either photoanalysis or logic. That the camera cannot resolve individual footprints does not imply that their effect on the photo would simply disappear. If there are lots of small, unresolved shadows in that area, then I would expect that area to simply look slightly darker than the smooth adjacent areas.

[spooked911]

62. Re Simon Shack

I have problems with some of his analyses. But he's spot on for some things. He tends to bat about .500 in his work, IMO.

So the question is why does he throw in so much junk with the good points?

He's a talented video producer, and he's not dumb. But still he puts in obvious junk in with some really nice proofs.

So why? I think the answer is the one that explains so much about the 9/11 "truth" movement-- many or even most of the prominent researchers are intel agents (or are controlled by intel agents) who purposefully taint/discredit their own work.

[William Seger]

87. Simon Shack is an idiot

... or he is very, very good at acting like one. You can't bat .500 by striking out time after time. I defy you to point to even one example of Simon Shack offering a valid proof of anything.

[jakeXT]

58. Let's wait for better pictures

The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came even before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

The LROC crew is probably wrong, just because Apollo 14 had no moon rover doesn't mean these are footprints.
This are probably skid marks from the handcart or a mix with footprints.


During the first EVA, there were a couple of differences from Apollo 12. One was a handcart - called, in NASA-ese, the Modular Equipment Transporter or MET - for hauling some of the equipment - an addition to the mission made possible by the post-accident delay. The MET didn't provide the mobility of the Rover planned for the later missions, but it did give the astronauts the ability to carry far more samples, containers and tools than they could have carried in their hands and on their backpacks. And the other difference from Apollo 12 was a healthy TV camera. Shepard pointed it toward the ALSEP site before they left the LM so that those of us at home could watch them as they made the traverse - sometimes dropping out of view as they crossed low spots in the terrain. Throughout much of the ALSEP deployment they were both in full view of the camera.

http://www.solarviews.com/portug/apo14.htm

[Realityhack]

33. Paranoid much lately?

"they dragged William Seger!"
Sure, I paged his super secret response pager as fast as I could when I saw this 'leak'. No chance he just noticed the thread like everyone else and commented on it.

Please stop embarrassing yourself and DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. OMFG

The most recent post reads as if it has to be satirical. And then I see the tie-in to The Anonymous Physicist's latest book: "150 Pages, 8 1/2 X 11, illustrated, spiral bound - $59.95 plus $5.00 shipping to the U.S. Only 100 numbered, collector’s item copies will be printed."

But shame on my skeptical self. After all, the guy has been massively poisoned with mercury emplaced throughout his home by agents of the American regime. He's just trying to catch a small break here.

[jberryhill]

36. "150 Pages, 8 1/2 X 11, illustrated, spiral bound"

Throw in "handwritten" and you'd have something there....

[SDuderstadt]

37. I'm starting to think Spooked...

is "The Anonymous Physicist".

[zappaman]

34. Spooked is right

But even he has no idea what the real story is. Forget about a faked moon landing, there IS NO MOON! In the early 20's, scientists figured out a way to project the moon in such a way so that it seems to hang in the sky(star technology was relatively simpler and in place in the late 1800's). This was done so people could look up and imagine there were other worlds. THERE IS NO MOON PEOPLE!!! WAKE UP!

[defendandprotect]

41. Thanks for the new link --

[defendandprotect]

59. Not to mention, corporate press has faked quite a few elections . . .!!!

[BuddyBoy]

63. The video is no longer available on youtube, unless I just

don't know how to use the site properly. If I understand correctly, what YOU are saying is that the Moon landing was faked, and the
video is evidence for that conclusion. I believe I've read that the Russians knew that the alleged landing was nothing but a propaganda
trick and that the U.S. was simply trying to bolster belief in the superiority of American scientific know-how in the so-called Space
Race but the Soviets kept quiet because that was thought to be (from their perspective) the smart thing to do since very few Americans would believe that the U.S. government had misled the world in such a fashion.

Question to those who believe the Moon landing wasn't faked: What evidence are you basing your belief on?

[jakeXT]

64. I remember reading the opinion of a cosmonaut, who said only parts were faked

Others don't even aknowledge that.
Although some blame Sergey Korolev for faking a bit, too.




"I could see Armstrong bouncing on the moon"


21 July, 2009, 22:51

Russia's prominent cosmonaut, first man to walk in space, Aleksey Leonov strongly rejects claims that Americans made up their moon mission and shares with RT his memories of Neil Armstrong walking on the lunar surface.
http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-07-21/I_could_see_Armstrong_bouncing_on_the_moon.html

[BuddyBoy]

65. Thanks. Interesting comments by the Cosmonaut.

His is obviously an important voice and his opinions certainly merit respect and attention. What I think would be at least as,
if not more interesting, would be what the Soviets were saying back in 1969. Do you by chance know of any links that might
give us that information?

I'm not 100% convinced one way or the other, but I'm currently leaning in favor of the view that the Moon landings were faked.

[jakeXT]

66. I don't know, but this guy says it was on page 5

reminds me a bit of our media today.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250402836976

[BuddyBoy]

67. Again, very interesting.

I wonder what the article actually says. Does it state categorically that Americans landed on the Moon or does it say something like
"NASA says U.S. astronauts land on Moon"? There are lots of different motives that I can see "Pravda" may have had at that time.
One tiny example being that even if they thought the claim was a hoax, they may have been pressured by Soviet space bureaucrats to
publish an account that they knew was false in order to put pressure on the Government to appropriate more funding for Soviet
military/space programs.

In any event, many thanks. It's very interesting to just see it and know the asking price for the article on Ebay.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Omigod...

Fucking unbelievable.

[Bassman66]

68. OH LOOK!

"TRUTHER" = "APOLLO HOAX BELIEVER" = "ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE LUNATICS"

Yeah....

Can you say COINTELPRO.

FFS.

Try harder.

This is tired.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. COINTELPRO didn't do that.

COINTELPRO infiltrated groups to act crazy and make the crazy label stick to groups. They did not infiltrate groups to call crazy people crazy.

Please learn what you are referring to. If anyone is actually COINTELPRO in the 9/11 truth movement, it's people like the no-planers and the CD-via-nukes. That's what COINTELPRO did.

[Bassman66]

70. I know what COINTELPRO is and how it's used..

...I refer to this quip from one of your pals.. "The dishonesty of the "truth movement" is stunning".

You see what he did there?

One 'truther' crank = all 'truther' cranks.

Yeah... no-planes, holograms, space beams, apollo hoax... everyone with a conspiracy theory is obviously a crank.

It's tired but I guess it still works for you.

[SDuderstadt]

74. I think you're quoting me...

If you're going to quote me, you might try to get the context right. I'm talking about the dishonest tactics used by every truther I've encountered. It includes deliberately mischaracterizing opponents' arguments, cherry-picking quotes, ignoring contradictory evidence, trying to tie debunkers to the Bush administration, claiming members here are paid shills, etc. You were one of the worst offenders.

[Bassman66]

77. "dishonest tactics used by every truther "

See!

I rest my case.

All people with questions are the same to SDuderstadt, they are all dishonest.

All people who have serious issues about 9/11 - like the Jersy Girls - are the same as people who think the moon landings were fake.

They're all dishonest... just look at the moon hoaxers if you want proof.

See how it works!

Unfortunately a lot of people can see why the no-planes and other crap keeps getting pushed... so people like you can knock 'em down and claim all truthers are dishonest.

Some people get it.

[SDuderstadt]

78. You just fucking did it again, dude...

you clipped my statement to make it appear I'm referring to every "truther". In fact, what I actually said was," dishonest tactics used by every truther I've encountered". I also made it clear that I was referring to their tactics, not the content of their claims. As I have stated previously, your dishonesty is stunning.

You just made my point, dude. I doubt you meant to be unintentionally ironic, but you succeeded in doing so, nonetheless.

[Bassman66]

79. Can you name an honest truther?

And perhaps tell us why you think they have a genuine concern?

[Bassman66]

80. Oh and...

as I don't think you will answer my question I'll refer you to your previous post.

"The dishonesty of the "truth movement" is stunning."

is pretty all-inclusive.

Some of us get it.

[spooked911]

71. I am not COINTELPRO

Nor did I say specifically here that the moon landings were faked.

[Bassman66]

72. You're no-planes and any other exotic theory going...

and you go believe the moon landings were faked although you "specifically didn't say it here".

Real 9/11 issues like those in "9/11: Press for Truth" get buried in the chaff.

The Apollo hoax and no-planes rubbish is all part of the chaff.

Because some truthers are cranks all truthers are cranks - it's so easy for the media and people on this board.

You can even clearly see it in this thread.

Ratf*cking is alive and well.

[spooked911]

83. can you say "limited hangout"?

you might want to dig a little deeper in your search for the truth.

but if you don't want to go there yet, that's fine with me.

[BuddyBoy]

85. By Jove, I think you hit the nail on the head, spooked911

It's sort of like saying "I love Obama and what he wants to accomplish, but these people who keep talking about
government-run healthcare or a single-payer system are making all of us Progressives look bad."

"I hate Bush, but criticizing what he did and saying that the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory is dubious just makes
all of us Progressives look bad. Look, I also have questions about 9/11 and I DO believe that there was enough
incompetence and intel failures and so on that occurred on that day that it's okay to ask questions, but saying it
was all an inside job and everything - that kind of stuff makes it easy for Rethugs to criticize us. But don't get
me wrong, I don't support EVERYTHING that the Bush administration did, but some of these far-out whacko conspiracy
theorists are hurting our cause with all this talk about Space robots zapping the WTC, hologram airplanes, Pods,
shape-shifting lizards, OBL working directly for Bush etc. -- that kind of stuff has no place on a Progressive forum."

[SDuderstadt]

75. Read your subject line again, Spooked...

yes, you did.

[spooked911]

84. I didn't write here that the landings were a hoax--

only that CBS faked (simulated) the landing for their coverage, which is true.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Well, that IS what you would say, isn't it?

No accusations have been made of anyone personally, Spooked. It's just silly to see people claim debunkers are COINTELPRO when anyone remotely familiar with the program knows how it operated.

And it's not my problem that you espouse a COINTELPRO-worthy CT.

[spooked911]

82. my assumption was that

"TRUTHER" = "APOLLO HOAX BELIEVER" = "ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE LUNATICS"

referred to moi.

[Why Syzygy]

73. Graham Hancock

said that NASA started the faked moon landing rumor themselves. The truth is by far stranger.

[jberryhill]

88. Kick for literally faked truth /nt