Very true.  All of the Programs are compartmentalized
to assure that only those who have a Need To Know are
cognizant of anything beyond their area of tasking or
expertise.  The vast majority of Americans simply have
no way to comprehend the workings of deception as a
tactic of control; nor can they imagine the vastness of
the personnel and other resources devoted to the
execution of the Plan.  Out of necessity only a very few
are fully aware.

I do not think you have any way to comprehend the complexity of the moon landing project, start to finish.  NASA does not build anything, it contracts it out.  There are many thousands of people who worked on this, and it's not like they all needed top level security clearance.

Anyway, do you really think that we could not get a man on the moon?  I mean, the US government had two choices, one is a massive conspiracy to make everyone think we landed on the moon, and the other is actually to put a man on the moon.  To me, it seems harder to fake it.

Men have been to the Moon, and beyond,
for quite some time.

But NASA has not accomplished it.

NASA is in the business of deception
as a political boondoggle; a funnel
for funding.

The "Other" Space Program is the
Real Deal.  Rockets are very old and
very limited technology but like
fireworks make for a good show.

And you know this how?

It is not possible to answer your question
with any specifics other than to say that
"research" will eventually lead you to the
evidence you seek.

Documentation exists.

I don't believe you.

Skepticism and denial can be a healthy sign.

Before anything is "believed" it should be
verified to one's satisfaction by reviewing
all available evidence without any pre-
conceived prejudices.

I certainly am not demanding that I be
believed.  As is always the case, in due
time the Truth will emerge whether we
wish it to or not.

Nor do I believe it.  Certainly there are government secrets but there is no secret or conspiracy related to the moon landings.

That is precisely the sentiment and
thought process which is sought after
by those who manage the propaganda
which emanates daily from "Kontrol"
(The District) to the masses via the MSM.

The Awakening hasn't yet reached into
the minds of all of the people.  But it
shall.  All things which have been concealed
shall be revealed.  The process has already
begun as demonstrated by World events.

There will be much Tribulation.

Watched a lot of moon stuff today both for and against hoax.   I found this 16mm color video on NASA's site quite interesting.   It would seem to validate that the landing was real.   Of course there are those who will say it is fake along with shaky hand held video taken from inside the capsule complete with lens flare from the Sun, one of those white mystery lights moving slowly across the picture (about 1 hour 4 minutes into the video) and a perspective that would be hard to fake except with a complete digital Hollywood effects studio.   I don't see them going to that kind of trouble as it's just one of many videos you can view there.  This vid:  http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/nasa#.UZrEgT7cwmY  which is on NASA's defense video & imagery distribution system.   


 Now on the other side of the hoaxers theory I heard some audio both on youtube and from NASA where Houston was talking to the Astronauts.    Speed of light and thus radio signals should be 186,000 miles per second.  Moon is about 250,000 miles away.  So one would expect voice going one way to take about 1.25 to 1.4 seconds.  Then assuming an immediate response on the other end another  1.25 to 1.4 seconds for a response from  the astronauts to return to Houston.   However there was clearly times when there was no lag and there was immediate response on the order of 1/8 second or less.   So what should have taken 2.5 to 2.8 seconds took less than a quarter of a second.      The youtubers could of course cut out the lag times in between responses.   But why would NASA cut out the lags?   I am not certain on what I heard in the NASA stuff yet but am still looking to find a situation where it definitely has no lag where one would expect it.   What to think about it all ....   I think it will be really hard to know for certain unless you know some of those deep on the inside very well.   The Internet has become one big rumor mill with many people hoping to influence the minds of the populace.

Every single thing the pro-hoax proponents assert has been rebutted.  Every single thing.   Now whether you buy the rebuttals or not is another thing, as certainly the argument can be carried further in some cases.  But amazingly, and almost without exception, every single hoaxer that comes on here spews the exact same crap that has already been rebutted, and they act like they have never read a single thing against their position.


You at least realize the explanation behind some missing lag (editing).  Also there are times where if you are not thinking, you might expect delay, but there should not be.  For example, when you hear the astronauts, and Houston responds immediately, well that is normal, as the recording is taking place here on earth.


I think if you were to examine all the real time audio,  you would find delay where it needs to be.

This audio clip from NASA's archives : http://www.dvidshub.net/audio/32203/apollo-11#.UZrhej7cwmY
is over 2 hours long.   There are many periods of long silence (several minutes at a time in some cases) so one would assume it has not been edited to remove dead air space.   Yet there were many times in the audio clip where responses between Houston and the astronauts on the moon were immediate (easily 1/2 second or less).  Time between Houston voice and Houston reception of Astronaut voice = or > 2.4 seconds by any logic.   Actual time heard in this audio above is often less than 1/4 second.
I understand what you are saying about Astronaut voice followed by Houston response being brief.    So far it would appear the brief times were only when Houston responded to an Astronaut.   It seems most Astronaut responses to Houston were around 2.5 seconds.   This seems to validate they were on the Moon unless you want to believe they put in all those delays as part of the fakery.   Also interesting in this audio was the statement about there being a 12 second delay between what Houston got for video/audio and the TV networks which got it 12 seconds later (mention of it going through a converter box).   
I'm leaning toward believing as I always had that we were indeed on the Moon.   Sure there are a lot of reasons one might tend to buy into the hoax theories but they seem on far shakier ground than the mountains of evidence I've sifted through today.     
I did however find one instance in the recording above where Astronaut response was immediate to a Houston question.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xciCJfbTvE4#t=1984s

I guess your response to a private party telling the astronauts when to 'talk' will be that it was edited into the above film.  If I was NASA or the astronauts I would sue the hell out of them and others like them for doing such a thing (slander and libel).  However, if the film is genuine, then they don't have much of a case, do they?

Gravock

Gravityblock:

When it suits you you use a blue screen effect and when it also suits you you use the Kubrick rear-projection effect.  What that means is that the conspiracy theorists can't agree among themselves.

Certainly the "shadows at the wrong angles" argument is totally false for anybody with half a brain.  I can walk down the street on a sunny day and see shadows at different angles.

I watched two out of the five parts you linked to.  In part two they take some film camera still images and increase the contrast and turn the black sky into dark blue with white dots and white splotches all over the place.  You also clearly see that the sky is broken up into segments like a checkerboard.

Well, chances are that most of the "white dots" are STARS.  Did they bother to check if the white dots line up with the expected star pattern?  I bet not.  Can you buy a good astronomy package for your computer that will show what the star pattern in the sky looks like on any day at any hour in 1969?  I bet you can!

They claim the "segments" observed in the frame are the special rear-projection screens all stitched together.  But in the Stanley Kubrick film clip we are clearly shown that the rear projection screen is very large, apparently much larger than the alleged segments of rear projection screen stitched together in the photographs!  At the same time, any engineer worth his salt will know how hard it is to prevent digital clocking signals from superimposing clock noise on any signal, especially very low level signals.  So the "segments" we see in the digitized photographs is just the digital hardware in the image scanning system adding very low level digital noise to the scanned images.  You are simply looking at the scanning clock signals for the image acquisition hardware being superimposed on the digital version of the film photograph.   And you think of all of the brainiacs that worked on that moon landing conspiracy movie and not one of them could postulate this explanation!

MileHigh

Gravityblock:

You are right that I got my terminology wrong and I am not 100% clear how the system that Stanley Kubrick used to great success works.  However, to the best of my recollection you end up with the illusion of an image projected on a rear screen.

I don't know if I will have the time or desire to fully research this and figure it all out.

One thing seems pretty certain though:  The moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists do not want to do a proper investigation and ask themselves if there are alternative explanations to their theories.

Look at the example of the shadows.  The analysis by the conspiracy theorists is infantile and silly.

There was a case where I saw how a conspiracy theorist was freaking out because he saw pictures of small models and a small mock-up of the moon's surface.  Well, that's because they didn't have computer graphics simulation in the 1960s and they simply "flew" a camera over a small model lunar landscape to generate the video scene for the landing simulator.

In a related matter there is a well known short Apollo clip of a "UFO" that "suddenly changes direction."  However, you see the plume from the maneuvering retro-rocket.  It's just a small piece of junk outside the command module, like a piece of ice, that changes direction when the retro rocket fires.

I think I watched the second longer movie about two years ago and I wasn't impressed.   Sorry that I can't do a full check into this stuff, there are only so many hours in a day.

MileHigh