Moon Myth Disinformation

[Evan Burton]

BTW - would the term 'misinformation' be more appropriate for the situations as I make them?

[Evan Burton]

I'll move this thread to the PC section, as it seems apparent that Prof Fetzer does not wish to debate the topic.

[William Kelly]

BTW - would the term 'misinformation' be more appropriate for the situations as I make them?

Yea, that would work.

And Evan, is it really possible for a modern warship to be sunk by a submarine but nobody know it for two months?

BK

Edited July 27, 2010 by William Kelly

[Evan Burton]

BTW - would the term 'misinformation' be more appropriate for the situations as I make them?

Yea, that would work.

And Evan, is it really possible for a modern warship to be sunk by a submarine but nobody know it for two months?

BK

Short answer? Yes. It's not a cut and dried situation.

I've looked at the situation and there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that it was a DPRK submarine, but even so I still have this nagging doubt. The investigative process does take time, recovering all the debris, examining it, reviewing modeling of various scenarios, etc.

[Evan Burton]

I have cited sources for those who want to pursue this, which I do not. You are obviously a fanatic about the moon landing and I have enough nonsense to deal with already. I submit that anyone who studies the evidence I have cited will conclude "man did not go to the moon"

So you cite sources, but haven't concerned yourself enough to be able to able to tell if their claims are valid or not. You parrot them.

If you investigated the claims - as I have - instead of parroting them, you'd discover they are baseless.

I think that's why you fear trying to debate me on this matter; you know I have extensive knowledge of the subject and you do not.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Everyone should consider all of the available evidence

on issues like this one. Here are my recommendations.

If you study them, then you can consult Evan Burton,

who claims that EVERY POINT they make is mistaken!

For resources on whether or not we went to the moon,

visit http://assassinationscience.com for links to these:

New Work on

Moon Photographs

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Russians letting the cat

out of the bag

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html

Moon Movie

http://moonmovie.com/

Top Ten Reasons Man

Did Not go to the Moon

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

Did Stanley Kubrick fake

the Moon Landings?

http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf

Conspiracy Theory

Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_science/25244.html

And here are the dates, guests and topics for 3 related

interviews archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009

Rich DellaRosa

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009

Bart Sibrel

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

I have cited sources for those who want to pursue this, which I do not. You are obviously a fanatic about the moon landing and I have enough nonsense to deal with already. I submit that anyone who studies the evidence I have cited will conclude "man did not go to the moon"

So you cite sources, but haven't concerned yourself enough to be able to able to tell if their claims are valid or not. You parrot them.

If you investigated the claims - as I have - instead of parroting them, you'd discover they are baseless.

I think that's why you fear trying to debate me on this matter; you know I have extensive knowledge of the subject and you do not.

[Evan Burton]

Professor Fetzer,

All have been addressed here.

(The only exception is the input from Dave Greer, whom I consider to be a better source than me regarding one specific claim)

You do yourself a disservice by repeating the same claims again. At worst I would suggest you link back to your original post.

I'm sure everyone can see how you are floundering, Professor. You endorse claims as being enough to "convince anyone" but you cannot actually stand up and debate them. So your good friend tells you that Pat Boone is in fact a child molester and satanist; because you believe your good friend would not lie to you, you accept what they say?

You have a source that tells you that any claim of helicopter flying a vertical loop is totally impossible, since the aerodynamics of such a situation are clearly impossible. This person has flown many hundreds of hours as a pilot in helicopters, so you assume they must be correct. When shown footage of a helicopter performing a vertical loop you automatically say that the film is faked. Have you checked to see if it is actually possible?

No Professor, you only see what you want to see. You only accept what you want to accept.

[Evan Burton]

I am sorry, Evan. You aren't worth the time.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You have been non-responsive or completely dismissive of the evidence of video fakery, which is

definitive insofar as the videos show events that are physically impossible, involving violations

of laws of aerodyamics, of physics, and of engineering. I have often observed that the official

account is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things. You are. I am not. Why would

I want to waste my time with someone who is willing to believe impossible things? The moon

landings fall into that category. The very fact that you claim to refute "every point" displays your

degree of irrationality. Why would anyone want to debate with an irrational agent like you? But I can

see you want to show your stuff. OK. This is from http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

10. The Fake Footage in Space.

A model of the moon is used for the Apollo 11 descent footage. Anyone with basic knowledge of motion pictures can see it's a fake moon. This fake footage is on the the tape we received from NASA, compiled on the DVD Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. Another example is the Lunar Ascent Module footage. It depicts a rotation that immediately commences at full speed, and after rotation, immediately stops. There is absolutely no indication of a drop off in speed or a gradual acceleration, as Newton's law of motion would necessitate. In addition, there are problems with the descent of at least two LEMs as well, as can be seen to the left in the Apollo 17 footage. We've gotten a lot of feedback on this, but perhaps if you'd seen the mislabeled tape sent to Sibrel from NASA's Johnson Space Center, you'd move this reason closer to number 1. The contents of that tape are available - Apollo 11 Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. You'd better watch it while sitting down. We have accumulated and produced over 250 YouTube videos that you can watch for free. We are convinced that our YouTube videos alone, put together with Jarrah White's YouTube videos will convince any honest person that Apollo did not take men to the moon.

Sadly, our YouTube account was finally removed after a second wave of attacks by 'NASA worshippers'. After having had over 60 of our videos removed, we transferred them to a Justin.TV account and MySpace.com. Both crimes against our free speech were the result of our enemies' handiwork. We learned that the Apollo-Believer propagandists had flagged our videos for 'inappropriate content'.

9. The Means and the Motive.

Does life imitate art, or art imitate life -- or is it possible that sometimes art simulates and manipulates life? Some have claimed that Stanley Kubrick was involved in the production of the Apollo EVAs. And not long ago, a Canadian, tongue-in-cheek film was produced to make a mockery of this claim. We hold no clear position on the matter. In addition, since the 1950's Walt Disney was recruited to create widespread public acceptance of a very expensive trip to the moon, as well as the public approval of a group of NAZI war criminals, led by Wernher von Braun. The result was widespread disinformation, but the end motive is not all together clear. One must ask, "Was the space race itself a fabrication, set up by those behind what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex"? See Reason 2.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks, and takeoffs from the moon's surface. The means existed. On that note, Google Search "Lookout Mountain Studio".

8. The Apollo One Fire.

The three true Apollo heroes who unwillingly gave their life (Grissom's famous quote is taken out of context since he was referring to a mission he was confident in - Gemini) at Pad 34 did not have to die. We all know that, but why did they die? After years of investigation into the findings of the 90th Congress, we believe that the AS-204 crew were not simply victims of neglect - they were executed. The findings are detailed in the multimedia DVD The Apollo One Accident Report, along with the complete 3,500+ page report for your own investigation. Lt. Col. Gus Grissom, a man of the highest military integrity, pulled the largest lemon he could find off the tree in his back yard, and told his wife, "I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft". This was 5 days after the famous media day pictures had been taken at Pad 34, and five days before he would die at Pad 34. Grissom also called a press conference to address grievances against NASA and North American regarding the failures of the CSM Block 1. There is no doubt that he, Roger Chaffee and Ed White [whose wife Pat was later 'suicided'] were on a path that would surely lead to heated confrontations and the public exposure of the manned moon landing hoax. They were sacrificed. There is no doubt about it. The evidence is clear.

7. The Testimony of Apollo Astronauts under Light Duress.

These men were professionals, trained to perform calmly under extreme pressure, but when it comes to defending the most important days of their professional career, they fall way short of producing the facts - resorting to threats of violence, unscientific statements, and absconding behavior. For example, in the film Astronauts Gone Wild, while defending the Apollo 11 footage of the Earth from 130,000 miles out, Buzz Aldrin said things like, "They can do all kinds of things with fake photography" (even though he shot this film with his own hands) and "We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight." Kicking and punching - is that a behavior of someone who knows they are in the right or someone angry at the threat of being exposed? And what about the Apollo 11 Press Conference (DVD)? Armstrong says he can't remember which stars he could see from the surface while shooting photos. Collins covers for him, saying "I don't remember seeing any". Collins of course, was not supposed to be on the moon's surface, so the NASA transcript attributes this saying to Aldrin.

6. "Moon" Rocks.

Wernher von Braun, a NAZI with the honorary rank equivalent of a major in Hitler's SS, took a team to Antarctica, while he was supposed to be perfecting Apollo's Saturn V rocket. This man signed papers to permit the use of slave laborers to build his V2 rockets, and over 20,000 people suffered daily and eventually died under his supervision. In addition, he sent countless V2 rockets into the heart of London - with plans to do so to Washington, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia. If he and his NAZI team were capable of such inhuman activities, it is clearly not a leap in logic to say they would have no problem continuing their unethical practices in this country as well. How? By falsifying the greatest purported evidence we have today for the manned landings -- by collecting meteorites to be later modified in a ceramic lab -- into forged moon rocks. Some say, we have tiny moon-made spheres! But these could have just as easily been collected by the unmanned probes we sent to the moon's surface.

5. The Limitations of 1960's Computer Technology, small meteors, and the Van Allen Belts.

Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back, with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on. Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit. In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors, even though the hull of the craft dubbed the LM had a hull so thin in places that a screwdriver wall fall through the floor if dropped. Yes, Space is a big place - but there were no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.

4. The Apollo 15 Flag Waving - Untouched.

In order to explain this one, the Apollo Believers must keep you guessing by resorting to claims of a static discharge with the astronaut's distant space suit. View the video for yourself (gif at top left of page), and see why this incident alone hits a lofty number 4 in our top 10.

3. The Lunar Surface Photographic and Video Record.

Problems with lighting and the infamous C-Rock photo with it's "C-less" counterpart doctored photo have been the subject of much debate between those who believe the photos have remained unaltered and others who believe the photos were completely staged. Still there are some photos that seem to fall into the retouched category. Countless photographic anomalies remain in question. There is no doubt that the more significant problem with the C-Rock photo is that it has obviously been altered, and the alteration we refer to has nothing to do with the rock, but the more serious problem is the cut and paste of the rover and astronaut. Also, few people notice the C on the ground, telling the set workers where to place the rock. It's there on the ground, directly below the C on the rock.

Also, under the Apollo 11 LEM, pebbles are still in place and there is no indication of landing by anything other than a cable lowered down on a pristine surface of grayish sand and powder. There are no streaks of dust spreading out from the descent engine.

We do not focus on shadows, except for a few photos. This is because the photos focused on by some have become straw men, easily debunked. The high-powered, fake sun reflected in the astronauts visors as a large circular object is a far stronger argument - and one that cannot be easily dismissed. We've included a link to Jack White's studies (left) for those interested in the photographic record, but again we don't place much weight on this argument. Shadow trajectory changes with terrain. It is the 8% average alb edo of the moon's surface that is more damning than shadow angles.

2. The Precedent of Secret U.S. Government Operations.

A knowledge of true history is needed to understand why the moon missions had to be faked. It had nothing to do with a real space race, but a fabricated and protected farce. The money powers needed to insure a race for arms and a race for space, manipulated for billions in profits for the global bankers and insider industrialists.

Japanese submarines at the mouth of Pearl Harbor were sunk many hours before the 1941 'surprise' attacks commenced. An intercepted, November communication of the attack plan was ignored. The U.S. entered WW II based on a lie. Sound familiar? The corrupt CIA and NSA were formed on the principal of insuring U.S. economic interests around the world and at home -- at any price.

John F. Kennedy, who had plans to unite the space exploration efforts of the Soviet Union with those of the United States, announcing hopes for a joint moon mission with the USSR at the United Nations -- thereby ending both the Space Race and Arms Race, never lived to see that day. The elite, international bankers would kill him before he had the chance, a mere two months after his joint moon mission speech of September 20th, 1963. (See video and documents below)

On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel, under the direct orders of LBJ. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was also a staged event, meant to insure expanded involvement in Vietnam. Area 51 continues to be one of the most heavily protected U.S. installations known today, guarding who-knows-exactly-what. And the list is endless.

Yes, covert operations have a prominent place in the U.S.A.'s recent sordid history. And although this reason in and of itself is not enough to prove the Manned Moon Landing to be a hoax, it certainly shows that the organizations are in place to carry out such an operation - 9 fake trips to the moon. Most .US. citizens are emotionally attached to the idea of "We got there first", so much so that the pride of being a part of the United States has made them forget what being citizen implies.

The foundation of this nation is dissent and rebellion against a corrupt government, never a worship of it. The government is to be a servant of the people, but our laziness has made us a slave to our government.

So, in summation, reason number 2 is that our own pride as a nation has blinded us to the fact that the intelligence community has been used as a tool of the elite to hijack our nation's assets and subject the will of the people to a "love affair" with NASA.

1. The 130,000 Mile Deception.

Apollo 11. July 18th, 1969. Neil Armstrong, having heard CapCom report Columbia's distance from the Earth at 130,000 miles out - begins the unofficial television transmission [to be edited and partially played later] by echoing the same distance of 130,000 miles. In view, out the Commander's window is a small ball of blue, with a terminator line and weather patterns matching Earth's current conditions.

We are meant to believe that the blue ball is Earth. It is not. This evidence is our top reason. There can be no doubt. The Apollo 11 Westinghouse camera was not zooming through deep space to see a distant Earth and zooming back out again through deep space. When truly understood, when one understands that the Earth could not have remained in view through the small window across the room, or suddenly appeared as large as when they zoomed into it - this proves the hoax. This is the 'smoking gun' of Apollo, and the top reason to not believe the official story. Raw footage of this is available on the DVD Apollo 11 Monkey Business with detailed explanations in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and confrontations about it with 9 of the Apollo astronauts in Astronauts Gone Wild.

Few people have taken the time to analyze this footage, but if they truly approach this footage for what it is and not what they hope it will be - they will come to the same conclusion. It is staged, and the Earth is fake.

Bart Sibrel got it wrong in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. He should have deeply consulted with other Hoax Researchers, but he did not. Sibrel thought it was an "in-orbit' shot of Earth through a circular window. Neither is correct. The commander's window is not circular, and there's no way this was the real Earth at all.

Behind Michael Collins, hanging on Window Number 1 [the commander's CM window] was a transparency - used when they brought down the lights and adjusted the camera exposure. The transparency was a picture of the planet Earth. This was first tested by another Apollo crew on their "flight", which can be examined in detail, through the research & videography of Jarrah White (linked above).

There is no room for "theory" here, in terms of whether or not Apollo safely sent men to the moon and back. The hoax is no longer simply speculation. It's an historical fact.

If you can think of any other reasons that are more convincing CONTACT us via our Contact page.

I am sorry, Evan. You aren't worth the time.

[Evan Burton]

Professor - thank you for your response. I intend to move the post to the relevant thread after a short period, allowing people to see it here before moving to it's proper home in the Apollo thread.

Again, thank you for responding - I look forward to proving why your opinions are wrong.

[Evan Burton]

Professor Fetzer has given the following in support of his claim that all the point previously made are valid. I'll reproduce it in full then deal with each section individually. I have a comment at the end of the quote.

You have been non-responsive or completely dismissive of the evidence of video fakery, which is

definitive insofar as the videos show events that are physically impossible, involving violations

of laws of aerodyamics, of physics, and of engineering. I have often observed that the official

account is just fine if you are willing to believe impossible things. You are. I am not. Why would

I want to waste my time with someone who is willing to believe impossible things? The moon

landings fall into that category. The very fact that you claim to refute "every point" displays your

degree of irrationality. Why would anyone want to debate with an irrational agent like you? But I can

see you want to show your stuff. OK. This is from http://www.moonmovie...vie/default.asp

10. The Fake Footage in Space.

A model of the moon is used for the Apollo 11 descent footage. Anyone with basic knowledge of motion pictures can see it's a fake moon. This fake footage is on the the tape we received from NASA, compiled on the DVD Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. Another example is the Lunar Ascent Module footage. It depicts a rotation that immediately commences at full speed, and after rotation, immediately stops. There is absolutely no indication of a drop off in speed or a gradual acceleration, as Newton's law of motion would necessitate. In addition, there are problems with the descent of at least two LEMs as well, as can be seen to the left in the Apollo 17 footage. We've gotten a lot of feedback on this, but perhaps if you'd seen the mislabeled tape sent to Sibrel from NASA's Johnson Space Center, you'd move this reason closer to number 1. The contents of that tape are available - Apollo 11 Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. You'd better watch it while sitting down. We have accumulated and produced over 250 YouTube videos that you can watch for free. We are convinced that our YouTube videos alone, put together with Jarrah White's YouTube videos will convince any honest person that Apollo did not take men to the moon.

Sadly, our YouTube account was finally removed after a second wave of attacks by 'NASA worshippers'. After having had over 60 of our videos removed, we transferred them to a Justin.TV account and MySpace.com. Both crimes against our free speech were the result of our enemies' handiwork. We learned that the Apollo-Believer propagandists had flagged our videos for 'inappropriate content'.

9. The Means and the Motive.

Does life imitate art, or art imitate life -- or is it possible that sometimes art simulates and manipulates life? Some have claimed that Stanley Kubrick was involved in the production of the Apollo EVAs. And not long ago, a Canadian, tongue-in-cheek film was produced to make a mockery of this claim. We hold no clear position on the matter. In addition, since the 1950's Walt Disney was recruited to create widespread public acceptance of a very expensive trip to the moon, as well as the public approval of a group of NAZI war criminals, led by Wernher von Braun. The result was widespread disinformation, but the end motive is not all together clear. One must ask, "Was the space race itself a fabrication, set up by those behind what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial Complex"? See Reason 2.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks, and takeoffs from the moon's surface. The means existed. On that note, Google Search "Lookout Mountain Studio".

8. The Apollo One Fire.

The three true Apollo heroes who unwillingly gave their life (Grissom's famous quote is taken out of context since he was referring to a mission he was confident in - Gemini) at Pad 34 did not have to die. We all know that, but why did they die? After years of investigation into the findings of the 90th Congress, we believe that the AS-204 crew were not simply victims of neglect - they were executed. The findings are detailed in the multimedia DVD The Apollo One Accident Report, along with the complete 3,500+ page report for your own investigation. Lt. Col. Gus Grissom, a man of the highest military integrity, pulled the largest lemon he could find off the tree in his back yard, and told his wife, "I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft". This was 5 days after the famous media day pictures had been taken at Pad 34, and five days before he would die at Pad 34. Grissom also called a press conference to address grievances against NASA and North American regarding the failures of the CSM Block 1. There is no doubt that he, Roger Chaffee and Ed White [whose wife Pat was later 'suicided'] were on a path that would surely lead to heated confrontations and the public exposure of the manned moon landing hoax. They were sacrificed. There is no doubt about it. The evidence is clear.

7. The Testimony of Apollo Astronauts under Light Duress.

These men were professionals, trained to perform calmly under extreme pressure, but when it comes to defending the most important days of their professional career, they fall way short of producing the facts - resorting to threats of violence, unscientific statements, and absconding behavior. For example, in the film Astronauts Gone Wild, while defending the Apollo 11 footage of the Earth from 130,000 miles out, Buzz Aldrin said things like, "They can do all kinds of things with fake photography" (even though he shot this film with his own hands) and "We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight." Kicking and punching - is that a behavior of someone who knows they are in the right or someone angry at the threat of being exposed? And what about the Apollo 11 Press Conference (DVD)? Armstrong says he can't remember which stars he could see from the surface while shooting photos. Collins covers for him, saying "I don't remember seeing any". Collins of course, was not supposed to be on the moon's surface, so the NASA transcript attributes this saying to Aldrin.

6. "Moon" Rocks.

Wernher von Braun, a NAZI with the honorary rank equivalent of a major in Hitler's SS, took a team to Antarctica, while he was supposed to be perfecting Apollo's Saturn V rocket. This man signed papers to permit the use of slave laborers to build his V2 rockets, and over 20,000 people suffered daily and eventually died under his supervision. In addition, he sent countless V2 rockets into the heart of London - with plans to do so to Washington, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia. If he and his NAZI team were capable of such inhuman activities, it is clearly not a leap in logic to say they would have no problem continuing their unethical practices in this country as well. How? By falsifying the greatest purported evidence we have today for the manned landings -- by collecting meteorites to be later modified in a ceramic lab -- into forged moon rocks. Some say, we have tiny moon-made spheres! But these could have just as easily been collected by the unmanned probes we sent to the moon's surface.

5. The Limitations of 1960's Computer Technology, small meteors, and the Van Allen Belts.

Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back, with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on. Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit. In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors, even though the hull of the craft dubbed the LM had a hull so thin in places that a screwdriver wall fall through the floor if dropped. Yes, Space is a big place - but there were no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.

4. The Apollo 15 Flag Waving - Untouched.

In order to explain this one, the Apollo Believers must keep you guessing by resorting to claims of a static discharge with the astronaut's distant space suit. View the video for yourself (gif at top left of page), and see why this incident alone hits a lofty number 4 in our top 10.

3. The Lunar Surface Photographic and Video Record.

Problems with lighting and the infamous C-Rock photo with it's "C-less" counterpart doctored photo have been the subject of much debate between those who believe the photos have remained unaltered and others who believe the photos were completely staged. Still there are some photos that seem to fall into the retouched category. Countless photographic anomalies remain in question. There is no doubt that the more significant problem with the C-Rock photo is that it has obviously been altered, and the alteration we refer to has nothing to do with the rock, but the more serious problem is the cut and paste of the rover and astronaut. Also, few people notice the C on the ground, telling the set workers where to place the rock. It's there on the ground, directly below the C on the rock.

Also, under the Apollo 11 LEM, pebbles are still in place and there is no indication of landing by anything other than a cable lowered down on a pristine surface of grayish sand and powder. There are no streaks of dust spreading out from the descent engine.

We do not focus on shadows, except for a few photos. This is because the photos focused on by some have become straw men, easily debunked. The high-powered, fake sun reflected in the astronauts visors as a large circular object is a far stronger argument - and one that cannot be easily dismissed. We've included a link to Jack White's studies (left) for those interested in the photographic record, but again we don't place much weight on this argument. Shadow trajectory changes with terrain. It is the 8% average alb edo of the moon's surface that is more damning than shadow angles.

2. The Precedent of Secret U.S. Government Operations.

A knowledge of true history is needed to understand why the moon missions had to be faked. It had nothing to do with a real space race, but a fabricated and protected farce. The money powers needed to insure a race for arms and a race for space, manipulated for billions in profits for the global bankers and insider industrialists.

Japanese submarines at the mouth of Pearl Harbor were sunk many hours before the 1941 'surprise' attacks commenced. An intercepted, November communication of the attack plan was ignored. The U.S. entered WW II based on a lie. Sound familiar? The corrupt CIA and NSA were formed on the principal of insuring U.S. economic interests around the world and at home -- at any price.

John F. Kennedy, who had plans to unite the space exploration efforts of the Soviet Union with those of the United States, announcing hopes for a joint moon mission with the USSR at the United Nations -- thereby ending both the Space Race and Arms Race, never lived to see that day. The elite, international bankers would kill him before he had the chance, a mere two months after his joint moon mission speech of September 20th, 1963. (See video and documents below)

On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel, under the direct orders of LBJ. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was also a staged event, meant to insure expanded involvement in Vietnam. Area 51 continues to be one of the most heavily protected U.S. installations known today, guarding who-knows-exactly-what. And the list is endless.

Yes, covert operations have a prominent place in the U.S.A.'s recent sordid history. And although this reason in and of itself is not enough to prove the Manned Moon Landing to be a hoax, it certainly shows that the organizations are in place to carry out such an operation - 9 fake trips to the moon. Most .US. citizens are emotionally attached to the idea of "We got there first", so much so that the pride of being a part of the United States has made them forget what being citizen implies.

The foundation of this nation is dissent and rebellion against a corrupt government, never a worship of it. The government is to be a servant of the people, but our laziness has made us a slave to our government.

So, in summation, reason number 2 is that our own pride as a nation has blinded us to the fact that the intelligence community has been used as a tool of the elite to hijack our nation's assets and subject the will of the people to a "love affair" with NASA.

1. The 130,000 Mile Deception.

Apollo 11. July 18th, 1969. Neil Armstrong, having heard CapCom report Columbia's distance from the Earth at 130,000 miles out - begins the unofficial television transmission [to be edited and partially played later] by echoing the same distance of 130,000 miles. In view, out the Commander's window is a small ball of blue, with a terminator line and weather patterns matching Earth's current conditions.

We are meant to believe that the blue ball is Earth. It is not. This evidence is our top reason. There can be no doubt. The Apollo 11 Westinghouse camera was not zooming through deep space to see a distant Earth and zooming back out again through deep space. When truly understood, when one understands that the Earth could not have remained in view through the small window across the room, or suddenly appeared as large as when they zoomed into it - this proves the hoax. This is the 'smoking gun' of Apollo, and the top reason to not believe the official story. Raw footage of this is available on the DVD Apollo 11 Monkey Business with detailed explanations in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and confrontations about it with 9 of the Apollo astronauts in Astronauts Gone Wild.

Few people have taken the time to analyze this footage, but if they truly approach this footage for what it is and not what they hope it will be - they will come to the same conclusion. It is staged, and the Earth is fake.

Bart Sibrel got it wrong in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. He should have deeply consulted with other Hoax Researchers, but he did not. Sibrel thought it was an "in-orbit' shot of Earth through a circular window. Neither is correct. The commander's window is not circular, and there's no way this was the real Earth at all.

Behind Michael Collins, hanging on Window Number 1 [the commander's CM window] was a transparency - used when they brought down the lights and adjusted the camera exposure. The transparency was a picture of the planet Earth. This was first tested by another Apollo crew on their "flight", which can be examined in detail, through the research & videography of Jarrah White (linked above).

There is no room for "theory" here, in terms of whether or not Apollo safely sent men to the moon and back. The hoax is no longer simply speculation. It's an historical fact.

If you can think of any other reasons that are more convincing CONTACT us via our Contact page.

I am sorry, Evan. You aren't worth the time.

Non responsive? I have continually asked YOU to respond - at last you have and what do we see? More cut and paste from the website of others. Lets face it Professor - you can't argue the position on your own, can you? You have to quote others... and you can't verify those quotes, can you? You can't defend any Apollo position on your own because you have no expertise in the area, do you? You just repeat the claims of others.

par·rot

noun

1. any of numerous hook-billed, often brilliantly colored birds of the order Psittaciformes, as the cockatoo, lory, macaw, or parakeet, having the ability to mimic speech and often kept as pets.

2. a person who, without thought or understanding, merely repeats the words or imitates the actions of another.

–verb (used with object)

3. to repeat or imitate without thought or understanding.

4. to teach to repeat or imitate in such a fashion.

(Bolding mine)

[Evan Burton]

Dr. Fetzer is absolutely correct. I have checked his website, and it is filled with accurate evidence and

apt conclusions. I am convinced that he is the world's foremost authority on 911. He may have a few

minor mistakes, but it makes little difference. If he is "only" 95 percent right, that is pretty impressive.

His critics should check his URLs and learn something, and limit their complaints to facts that they

believe wrong...not what someone else interprets as the Fetzer position.

He correctly stands up to his critics, and in some cases his retorts are perhaps too mild. There is

something wrong when the evidences is available and critics refuse to examine it.

Jack

But Jack, what is the point? If his actions with respect to the Professor's Apollo claims are anything to go by, he - like you - just simply ignores any critics or accuses them of being some type of agent.

Both you and the Professor won't accept any conflicting viewpoints - so why should anyone bother?

[Glenn Viklund]

Dr. Fetzer is absolutely correct. I have checked his website, and it is filled with accurate evidence and

apt conclusions. I am convinced that he is the world's foremost authority on 911. He may have a few

minor mistakes, but it makes little difference. If he is "only" 95 percent right, that is pretty impressive.

His critics should check his URLs and learn something, and limit their complaints to facts that they

believe wrong...not what someone else interprets as the Fetzer position.

He correctly stands up to his critics, and in some cases his retorts are perhaps too mild. There is

something wrong when the evidences is available and critics refuse to examine it.

Jack

But Jack, what is the point? If his actions with respect to the Professor's Apollo claims are anything to go by, he - like you - just simply ignores any critics or accuses them of being some type of agent.

Both you and the Professor won't accept any conflicting viewpoints - so why should anyone bother?

Not many do bother about these characters. I'd say it's very likely that those who hijacked the 9/11 movement are in the single digit percentage numbers. Just about the same numbers that supported Fetzer when he was voted out. They are regarded as crackpots and for good reasons.

This thread shows how it's done:

You don't know what you are talking about. I do.

My sources are impeccable. Your sources don't know what they are talking about.

The theories I support are the only conclusion. You are defending government lies.

Your videos are fake. Mine are not.

Your pictures are fake. Mine are not.

Your parts have been planted. I don't do that.

Your witnesses are wrong. Mine are not.

Your witnesses are lying or imagining things. Mine are not.

You have no courage. I do.

You have no intellectual capacity. I do.

One would think this level of argumentation is from twelve year old children. But apart from the rants and the insults, this is how Fetzer argues his case.

Which is one of the reasons these goofy theories will never get any traction. They will stay in the asylum permanently. I'm still waiting to see the outlandish explanation for the 20.000 body parts found on ground zero (along with 150 full bodies). I have no doubt there is one.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Evan Burton]

[Evan Burton]

Well, there is little point in my responding to Prof Fetzer's claims because they are just a cut&paste of the same claims he made before!

Professor, you might at least do me the courtesy of reading my replies. Still - I can understand why you do not. In the Apollo world, you are a lightweight.

Actually, that is wrong.

A lightweight would have some - even if flawed - knowledge of the programme. You Sir, know nothing about the programme. You just picked something you liked and adopted it, without the care or ability to check its veracity.