A Photography Based Proof Why We Most Definitely Did Land On the Moon

I have always been fascinated by space travel. Back in college a friend showed me a documentary that proposed that the moon landing is a hoax. The arguments were based on photography, videography, and lighting tricks and I remember thinking "wow could this really have been staged?" Mr. SG Collins makes a pretty compelling argument claiming that neither NASA nor Stanley Kubrick were actually technologically capable of producing a video that could stand up to modern scrutiny. Collin's photographic argument should put a final nail in the conspiracists' theory for good.

Log in or register to post comments

60 Comments

Previous comments
Jeremiah Cress's picture

 You, good sir, see clearly.  Everything you said was rational and grounded in fact.  Unfortunately, thanks to disinformation campaigns and our media, most of what you said will appear to the average person as paranoia and speculation.  In a society where most people consider themselves "informed" and "enlightened," not looking at things from every angle seems like foolishness. 

So often I hear the term "conspiracy theory" or the statement "that sounds conspiratorial."  Since when does that negate the possibility of something being true?  Conspiracy is a CRIME.  Not a work of fiction.  It lies somewhere between a felony and a high misdemeanor.  Those in power would most likely want to remain that way, and I doubt that conspiring to keep that power is beneath them.  Any time we see a "scandal" such as Enron or the LIBOR scandal, those individuals have CONSPIRED together to commit a crime.  And that is no theory.  That is just a fact.

Thanks for your post.  I hope you continue to spread the word.

 There are far more conspiracy theories than conspiracies proven.  Conspiracies proven usually have a limited number of people involved, all of whom have a financial interest in keeping the conspiracy silent.  Hard to see how thousands of people could be bribed decades after the fact to keep silent about this.  There is also the reflectors left on the moon by Apollo that any astronomy student can detect.

Daniel Earwicker's picture

I like how he reminds me a little of Donald Sutherland's X character in 'JFK', only he's talking sense instead of nonsense.

He actually understates the scale of the problem for later missions. Not only was the frame rate three times higher, also the time spent walking around was just 2 hours 13 minutes for Apollo 11, whereas the Apollo 17 crew stayed for three days, and each day they went out for over seven hours, adding up to 22 hours of live video feed.

(I'd love to watch some of that footage, but unfortunately spacecraftfilms.com still haven't sent me the DVDs, even though I ordered them about five months ago.)

Ralph Hightower's picture

I work with a few people who only know of the moon landings from history books. For the 40th anniversary, NASA put together a special page to commerate the event as if it were happening in real time. I got one of my coworkers hooked on the site even though he was born after the final moon landing.

Fortunately, the first moon landing happened in July when school was on break. My parents let me and my younger sister and brother stay up to watch the video. I have followed NASA beginning with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, through the Space Shuttle. I got to see in person, two final launches: the US half of the Apollo-Soyuz launch and Space Shuttle Atlantis.

I remember Walter Chronkite holding a model of the Apollo Command Module in one hand and the LEM in the other hand and demonstrating how the events would unfold. That was live TV with no redos.

There was no PowerPoint; all the depictions of the various phases of the missions were hand-drawn by artists. There was no CGI animation. Also, cameras used film instead of bits.

Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch from launch platform:
http://vimeo.com/4366695

David Crockett's picture

This guy is just awesome!

I love to watch it again and again

<a href="http://www.uploadrecipes.com/" title="Upload Recipes" rel="nofollow">Upload Recipes</a>

Hoosein Kader's picture

A space race requires a winner by any means necessary. The rockets..frame rates..technologies in video editing are the least of worries. The actual landing and the first step video recording, who recorded that? Oh! the curiosity rover did? gotta be. If i know i have visited Washington DC in 89, I would not care who questions that reality, in fact i would laugh at them than go and do public presentations to support my reality. He forgot that studios can do many tricks with video as far back as 1965, a rocket does not prove a landing.. a landing would not need much proof being self evident, instead of a barrage of videos and books trying to support the lie. 

The actual landing and the first step video recording, who recorded that? Oh! the curiosity rover did? 

It was mounted on the outside of the lander: "Armstrong pulled a D-ring to deploy the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) folded against Eagle's side and activate the TV camera"

Ugh, I made it about a minute in.

I guess morgan freeman doesn't narrate everything.

Armstrong's decent was filmed by the MESA he triggered while exiting, Aldrin's was filmed by Armstrong. Valid question, but no mystery there.

meant descent

also, 
Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing - Lunar Gravity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE

John's picture

Great video. It's a shame you are an anti-war beatnik though. If you think US and its allies should not have attacked Saddam, you need to focus on how many terrorists were in Iraq. After all, who do you think fought us in Iraq all those years, long after Saddam's "army" evaporated. It was Al-Queada - the same terrorists responsible for 9-11.

 I have to point out that Al-Queada moved into Iraq after the war started.  Saddam was very hostile towards Al-Queada and suppressed them while he was in power.

Nothing this guy said makes me change my mind about the moon landing being fake. I've always liked this special that covers everything he just said and more. Watch it and make your own conclusion...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MIy8ZqqK5G8

 

Very, very good!!! Excellent arguments! And very well organized video. A lot of art here.

Marko Acosta's picture

Well, if we were there about 500 years in the past, probably we also would hear something like
"For Jesus Christ, I don't believe that such a Columbus sailed this earth that everyone knows to be flat, and came to another continent.
I won't believe in such absurd, until I can put my own feet on another planet... I mean continent.
By all that is holy, how can someone believe in Colombus?
That there are people who are not white? Or places where it is so hot, that people walk naked? Or that there are people who walk naked?
Or that there are places where people have never heard about Christ?
If the holy inquisition don't become more energetic, soon there will be heretics claiming that the earth revolves around the sun, or that man can fly"

I've posted comments --twice-- and can only conclude this fstoppers.com website is operated by cowardly and corrupt operators who are afraid to face the facts that do indeed prove NASA faked the moon landing. 

Fuzz Aldrin's picture

Don't know why people still debate whether the Moon landings were fake or real. It was proven many, many years ago that NASA faked all the Moon missions. We know why they faked them. We know where they faked the lunar landing and lift off. We know who faked the Apollo Moon pictures for NASA and he has admitted it. We have had statements from people who worked on the Apollo program, who claim it was faked. So why is it still being debated?  

Fuzz Aldrin's picture

http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk No longer need to debate Apollo, it's case closed.

samuel's picture

Gone awfully quite in this forum. What's the problem? Is the HARD EVIDENCE to much for you Pro Apollo Nutters to comprehend, and the fact that your lifelong fantasy was nothing more than a hoax? Do you feel gullible and stupid for being taken a ride into a fairy tale world of make believe, and you fell for it?   

In October 2012 we discovered a reflection that showed up in one of the Apollo 11 images. We asked people from both sides of the debate to have a look at it and to see what may have caused this reflection. We will now present our own investigation and the theory we would like to put forward for debate. We will start with the image that shows the upside down reflection of the number two.
http://awe130.nl

Fuzz Aldrin's picture

No more postings please, as it is now case closed, Moon landings faked. 

The Apollo moon landings debate has been going on for 40 years. Some say it all really happened and that the photo material is the living proof of it. Others say it is all a hoax and the images were all made in studios. AwE130 did an investigation into these claims and has spoken and worked with people from both sides of the debate. This resulted in credits for our work in the “Apollo Lunar Surface Journal” (ALSJ), the leading archive published on the nasa.gov website. It is important to note that the ALSJ are not NASA. They are a group of people who started the archive in the 1990′s with the idea to create a historical archive about the Apollo moon landings. Later they asked NASA if they could run the ALSJ on the nasa.gov website and were allowed to do so. For more information about how the ALSJ came into existance you can listen to this interview with Eric Jones, one of the initiative takers of the ALSJ project and Chief Editor of the ALSJ (Click here for interview). The ALSJ do state on their website that the images are provided by NASA Johnson. They also state that images made from the original film are sometimes post processed. When this is done they mark the image (OF300). See link. Never is stated in the captions of images when they re-uploaded new image as an serious historical archive should do.hundreds of image altered by the “Apollo Lunar Surface Journal” without any reference or comment they just wallpapered over.

If you really think that this lame video closes the case of the moon hoax conspiracy, you are really very naive and you know extremely badly the moon hoax conspiracy.
You have absolutely no idea about the richness and abundance of arguments of the moon hoaxers.
You have no idea that the possibilities of faking the mmoon landings were much beyond what SG Collins tries to make believe.
And you have also no idea about how much more difficult it was to make a spaceship land on the moon than SG collins imagines it is.

I wish these idiots who still accept the Apollo fairy story would do some research, instead of making themselves look complete idiots.

awe130's picture

Dutch live Apollo 11 broadcast was erased within 5 years.
In the Netherlads the Apollo 11 live broadcast was erased within 5 years (according to Rudolf Spoor, Television Director of the Apollo moon landings NOS). ED Hengeveld, an "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" (ALSJ)contributor who works for the NOS (the Dutch equivalent of BBC) spent some years searching for the tapes before coming to the conclusion that they were gone.
http://www.awe130.nl/index.php/interviews/147

There are 100 reasons why the moon landing is real.

There are 100 mirrors placed around the landing site.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/

Reflect on that!

The best Sci Fi movie with slow motion like 2001: A Space Odyssey is in 1968 and the moon landing is in 1969. And he said no technology to fake?