Jump to content
The Education Forum

How America Faked the Moon Landings


Duane Daman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Conspiracy researcher , author and scientist Charles T. Hawkins wrote a book called ' How America Faked the Moon Landings ' ... Here is a google video clip of one of Hawkin's discoveries about nasa's deception with their voice overs of the 'moon footage' ... This was suppossed to be one of the live transmissions from the moon , but unfortunately for nasa they sometimes made the mistake of using different 'live' voice overs for the same 'moon' scenes .

When I posted this clip on another forum awhile ago I was led to believe by some of the nasa defenders there that Hawkin's had manipulated these video voice overs himself , just to sell his book ... but after watching an official nasa documentary today called 'For All Mankind' , I found that it was nasa who did the manipulating , not Hawkins.

In this documentary nasa used the wrong voice over called the "House Rock" , when allegedly the correct one is called " The Football Rock" .... So this nasa documentary proves that Hawkins was not being deceptive in any way ... but nasa was .

Click here to watch nasa's official unedited 'moon landing' film clips showing both voice overs 'live' from the 'moon' !!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477886391235654973

And here's the link to part of the official nasa documentary accidently using the "House Rock" voice over which suppossedly belongs to another EVA from the same mission .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzNp3fvrxA

Book : How America Faked the Moon Landings

http://www.amazon.com/How-America-Faked-Mo...ages/0974940526

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Conspiracy researcher , author and scientist Charles T. Hawkins wrote a book called ' How America Faked the Moon Landings ' ... Here is a google video clip of one of Hawkin's discoveries about nasa's deception with their voice overs of the 'moon footage' ... This was suppossed to be one of the live transmissions from the moon , but unfortunately for nasa they sometimes made the mistake of using different 'live' voice overs for the same 'moon' scenes .

<snip>

This is an interesting one. I'd seen the claim before, and just assumed that the person making the claim was responsible for the editing of the audio - it seems this is not so.

The official version of this scene can be found here, and it corresponds to the second half of the video under discussion.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1240739.mov

It's from Apollo 16, at Station 1. The clip starts approximately 124:07:30.

OK, that's the official audio transcript. Which leaves us with the "unofficial" audio. I have to admit, my first thought is that this was done either by Charles T Hawkins, or another conspiracist. Looking at the "For All Mankind" footage however does confirm that it is from this documentary.

So, where exactly does this audio footage come from? Trawling the ALSJ, it does all come from Apollo 16, but is spliced from different EVAs. I've emboldened the audio we hear - this is all taken from the ALSJ. The time-stamps are clearly taken from different EVAs.

145:33:34 Duke: (Finishing the swath) Hey, there's a great one, John.
There's a good rock, right there.

167:42:03 Duke:
Look at the size of that rock!

145:14:39 Duke: I know it. Man, we('ve) come a long way!
I thought this thing
(meaning Stone Mountain)
was just right next door to us
(at the LM). (Long Pause)

167:43:11 Duke: Well, Tony,
that's your "house rock" right there
.

144:00:43 Duke: And
it's got black streaks coming out of it
. Okay, our Amps are now up to 60. Well, wait a minute. That's Volts.

144:50:36 Duke: Man,
this is tough going, ain't it?.

144:52:01 Duke: Yeah.
Here, let me have the shovel.
Okay. I got it. (Pause)

167:47:03 Young: Okay,
now I'll get it.

144:17:58 Duke: I'll get the lens brush. (Answering Tony) Yeah, it looks really dusty, Tony.
Just a minute.

144:52:21 Duke: Here's some rocks.
Good deal, boy.
That's great! (As John reaches to start another swath) Wait a minute; let's fill this one up, and then...(As John lifts the rake) Hey, John, watch it. (Holding the sample bag relatively low) Is that okay for you?

167:53:07 Duke: There's a real frothy rock right there, John. You want to throw that in? (Straining, perhaps picking up the sample or helping John do so) (Pause) Doesn't look like you're...
There you go.

...Garbled...

146:15:59 England:
Okay, and you've got about 10 minutes left before we'll have to leave.

144:52:21 Duke: Here's some rocks. Good deal, boy. That's great! (As John reaches to start another swath) Wait a minute; let's fill this one up, and then...(As John lifts the rake) Hey, John, watch it. (Holding the sample bag relatively low)
Is that okay for you?

124:21:06 Young:
Yeah, it sure is
.

146:16:28 Duke: Well, we try to please.
338 is the soil sample.

Clearly the audio is not contiguous!

Which leads us to an obvious question: why?

This is from the documentary "For All Mankind". The director is a guy called Al Reinert. Apparently he has used an awful lot of artistic licence in the making of the film. Although it has some truly beautiful footage, it is in no way an accurate historical record, neither is it claimed to be. For example, the audio of Apollo 11 landing is played over video of Apollo 16 landing. Black and white footage of Apollo 11 is then intercut with colour TV footage from another Apollo mission (Apollo 11 had no colour TV images).

In fact, it's probably easier to find audio that DOESN'T match the video, than it is to find audio that DOES match! This is mentioned in various reviews of the documentary at Amazon.com. This one in particular sums up how I feel having seen it:-

I've never felt as ambiguous about a movie as I do with this one. It is a case of all the right ideas used in all the wrong ways. Exclusively using original NASA footage and audio makes perfect sense. Where Mr. Mattingly (sic) goes terribly wrong is taking footage from completely unrelated missions and creating his own Frankenstein's moon shot.

I'm not picking nits here. The movie depicts a space walk during an Apollo moon mission, using Gemini footage. The astronaut identifications are sometimes wrong. The voice-overs don't match the images. And, by far, the most distrubing inconsistency is the depiction of the Apollo 13 disaster, followed by "everything is fine" dialog and a continuation to the moon!

The only redeeming quality of this film is the footage itself. It is stunning, to stay the least. Especially beautiful is the footage on the moon and of the astronauts driving the rover.

I shudder to think of anyone watching this film with the assumption that it represents historical fact. If you want pretty pictures, this film fits the bill. If you want history, go elsewhere
.

My bolding on the last sentence.

In fact, in the DVD commentary, (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind)

Reinert also explains that although the documentary purports to show a single moon mission, it is in fact a collage of images from all six missions. Furthermore, images are often presented out of context: the images of rocket stage separation are test footage shot during earlier missions; a shot used to represent lunar orbit injection is in fact footage of re-entry. Furthermore, the images of a spacewalk are from a Gemini mission, since Apollo missions did not involve spacewalks.

Duane - can't remember if I was involved in any discussion on this on another forum, but if I claimed it was done by a conspiracist, then I was wrong. It was Al Reinert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see ... So it was all Al Reinert's fault that the voice over was switched ... It's NEVER nasa's fault , is it Dave ?

Yes , I watched the entire video and saw where the maker of this documentary took much out of context ... It was a jumbled mess of video footage showing many different missions , with a naration which didn't bother to clarify that the official nasa footage was from different missions , instead of just the first one ....

But aside from that , why would you think that Mr. Reinert would deliberately REMOVE the astronaut's ORIGINAL OFFICIAL VOICE OVERS , to replace them with DIFFERENT VOICE OVERS from another part of the EVA ? .... There would have been absolutely no reason to do this within the context of this documentary .

Don't you think that even though Reinhert took the liberty of combining film footage from different missions , that he would have no reason whatsoever to edit out OFFICIAL NASA VOICE OVER dialogue for NO REASON to replace it with a voice over which didn't really apply to the scene ?

And what would make you think that Charles T. Hawkins was even refering to this documentary at all , when he made no mention of it in in his video clip showing the two different voice overs ?

He clearly stated that his examples came from "OFFICIAL NASA MOON LANDING FOOTAGE" , not from someone's documentary who might have deliberately switched the voice overs for no reason .... Sorry , but your rebuttal makes no sense .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see ... So it was all Al Reinert's fault that the voice over was switched ... It's NEVER nasa's fault , is it Dave ?

Yes , I watched the entire video and saw where the maker of this documentary took much out of context ... It was a jumbled mess of video footage showing many different missions , with a naration which didn't bother to clarify that the official nasa footage was from different missions , instead of just the first one ....

But aside from that , why would you think that Mr. Reinert would deliberately REMOVE the astronaut's ORIGINAL OFFICIAL VOICE OVERS , to replace them with DIFFERENT VOICE OVERS from another part of the EVA ? .... There would have been absolutely no reason to do this within the context of this documentary .

Don't you think that even though Reinhert took the liberty of combining film footage from different missions , that he would have no reason whatsoever to edit out OFFICIAL NASA VOICE OVER dialogue for NO REASON to replace it with a voice over which didn't really apply to the scene ?

And what would make you think that Charles T. Hawkins was even refering to this documentary at all , when he made no mention of it in in his video clip showing the two different voice overs ?

He clearly stated that his examples came from "OFFICIAL NASA MOON LANDING FOOTAGE" , not from someone's documentary who might have deliberately switched the voice overs for no reason .... Sorry , but your rebuttal makes no sense .

Considering the only place the footage exists with incorrect audio is reinert's documentary, and there are no official nasa versions with the incorrect audio, I'd say his rebuttal makes perfect sense. Unless you can find an official nasa source with the wrong audio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin .... Here is my rebuttal to you .... There would have been absolutely NO REASON for Reinert to have DELIBERATELY REMOVED AND THEN SWITCHED OFFICIAL NASA VOICE OVERS in this piece of nasa 'moon landing' footage for his documentary ... For what possible reason would he have done that ? ...

Try to face the facts here okay nasa fans ? ...The voice over dialogue could have fit either scene and nasa just forgot which one they were using for which scene .... These voice overs were obviously not done live from the moon ... but rather over dubbed to fit the scenes at a later time .... and nasa has always been known for their bad editing ! .... You boys can't even admit it when nasa's deception is right before your very eyes , can you ?

But if you want me to find this little error now , I doubt it would be very easy , if even possible at all ... Don't you think that now that Hawkins has outed nasa , that they have made sure this little mistake has since been corrected , so no one else can use it against them ? ... Plus , what a bonus for them if they can make Hawkin's out to be a xxxx .

Have you any idea how much Apollo conspiracy information has now gone missing from the internet ? ... Certain web sites have been completely removed which are damaging to nasa and the Apollo 'moon landings' .... official Apollo photos which showed major amamolies have since been deleted from official nasa sites also ... It's called ... SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE .... and nasa is hard at work doing that all over the internet .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason for the director to show spacewalk footage from a Gemini mission or put Apollo 11 audio over the Apollo 16 landing either but he did it. The only fact I see is there is no proof that NASA messed up the audio and as the only source is in this documentary it most likely originated in this documentary. Try to face the facts okay here Duane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin .... Here is my rebuttal to you .... There would have been absolutely NO REASON for Reinert to have DELIBERATELY REMOVED AND THEN SWITCHED OFFICIAL NASA VOICE OVERS in this piece of nasa 'moon landing' footage for his documentary ... For what possible reason would he have done that ? ...

Try to face the facts here okay nasa fans ? ...The voice over dialogue could have fit either scene and nasa just forgot which one they were using for which scene .... These voice overs were obvioulsy not done live from the moon ... but rather over dubbed to fit the scenes at a later time .... and nasa has always been known for their bad editing ! .... You boys can't even admit it when nasa's deception is right before your very eyes , can you ?

Duane

I can understand why you think this is all part of some big deception, but that viewpoint doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. NASA has fully documented all the Apollo missions, you can see transcriptions at the ALSJ, along with thousands of official photos, hours of TV footage, audio recordings, and an absolute mine of otehr information.

This is quite clearly a documentary meant to serve a different purpose, and all the reviews I've read confirm that (yes, there are plenty of reviews of this documentary to be found quite quickly - virtually all of the ones I've read mention the fact that scenes are interchanged, and audio is dubbed over the wrong parts. This was the director's intention - he did it for effect. I agree it is a bit disconcerting for people like me and you, who know more than the average layperson about who said what on which mission. Remember, it isn't just the "football rock" scene you initially mentioned - it's virtually EVERY scene. It's a collage, and the director admits as much.

This film was made in 1989, but and as far as I am aware the director is still alive and well. You could try and get an email address for him and ask him directly? The director's rationale is apparently discussed by the director in the DVD commentary.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the original audio was too dry, and didn't sound exciting enough for what he wanted at that point in the film?

Incidentally, he even admits going to a space museum for one scene where he had no original footage to match the astronauts audio, and shooting a picture of the moon through a lander window! (I shouldn't really tell you this, because I know you will see it as proof that NASA faked all their missions - but the director readily admits to it, so why shouldn't you know!)

In conclusion, it looks great - but it in no way depicts a single actual mission - and is not part of the record. In the same way that the novel Space (about Apollo 18) is not part of the official record (two astronauts die on the surface after a large solar flare).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin .... Here is my rebuttal to you .... There would have been absolutely NO REASON for Reinert to have DELIBERATELY REMOVED AND THEN SWITCHED OFFICIAL NASA VOICE OVERS in this piece of nasa 'moon landing' footage for his documentary ... For what possible reason would he have done that ? ...

Artistic license?

Try to face the facts here okay nasa fans?
Hey Pot, have you met Kettle?
...The voice over dialogue could have fit either scene and nasa just forgot which one they were using for which scene ....

NASA "forgot". Man what you won't imagine to keep your delusion going. NASA perpetrated the biggest hoax in the world, but "forgot" what voice recordings were supposed to go with what video. Do you hear yourself?

These voice overs were obviously not done live from the moon ... but rather over dubbed to fit the scenes at a later time .... and nasa has always been known for their bad editing ! ....
So obvious that that only you can see it, and a handful of Sibrel's and company's followers.
You boys can't even admit it when nasa's deception is right before your very eyes , can you ?

There has been no deception. Hard to see what isn't there.

But if you want me to find this little error now , I doubt it would be very easy , if even possible at all ... Don't you think that now that Hawkins has outed nasa , that they have made sure this little mistake has since been corrected , so no one else can use it against them ? ... Plus , what a bonus for them if they can make Hawkin's out to be a xxxx .
So now that the cat is out of the bag, NASA is gonna go back and try to fix up all their little mistakes? It took almost 40 years for someone to find it? What about all the other copies that have been made of the originals up untill now? How will they get rid of those?
Have you any idea how much Apollo conspiracy information has now gone missing from the internet ? ... Certain web sites have been completely removed which are damaging to nasa and the Apollo 'moon landings' .... official Apollo photos which showed major amamolies have since been deleted from official nasa sites also ... It's called ... SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE .... and nasa is hard at work doing that all over the internet .

Oh please, if NASA really had the power to make Apollo Hoax theories websites "dissappear", why is Cosmic Daves site still up? Has been for the better part of FIVE YEARS. Despite the fact that it has been shown to be OH SO WRONG so many times, he continues to leave all is assertions as is. There are lots of hoax sites, and they don't discredit anyone but the authors of the sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must you all constantly mis-quote what I post ? ... Here is what I said about web sites and photos disappearing from the internet .

"Certain web sites have been completely removed which are damaging to nasa and the Apollo 'moon landings' .... official Apollo photos which showed major amamolies have since been deleted from official nasa sites also ... It's called ... SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE .... and nasa is hard at work doing that all over the internet ."

Did I mention anything about Cosmic Dave's web site ? ... or any other conspiracy web site for that matter ? ... NO ! ...I am talking about the kind of web sites with titles such as ... Scientisits Have now Discovered that the Van Allen Radiation Belts are Far More Dangerous than Ever Suspected .... Or ... Is Radiation Going to be the New Show Stopper in Going to the Moon ? .... Or .... Moon rocks Have Been Discoverd in the Antarctic ... Or ... Apollo 1 info.com ... Scott Grissom's site asking for information about his fathers death and wanting to re-open the investigation .... nasa loves web sites like Cosmic Dave's because they make the conspiracy theorisits look like nut cases .... but they obviously don't like the type of ligitimate sites which just might put them in a bad light ... or maybe give us all reason to doubt that Apollo astronauts ever really landed on the moon .

And then there are the Apollo photos which contain anomalies which are found on certain conspiracy sites , but when you look for the high resolution originals on the Apollo Image Galley , they are no longer there .... This is what I mean about suppression of conspiracy evidence .

But getting back to Reinart's documentary .... I think all of you nasa defenders are clutching at some pretty slippery straws here .... If you really believe that he would have removed official nasa voice overs from certain footage and then gone searching for a different voice overs that he thought were more exciting or interesting for that footage , then you all need a reality check .... Artistic license is one thing ... but what you are suggesting does not even make any sense .

Hawkins claims that nasa did this poor job of editing on other film footage as well, in using different voice overs for the same scene .... and after watching the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon' , I saw where nasa even ADMITTED TO POOR EDITING in attempting to cover their asses when film footage from two different EVA locations, shot on two different days , were found to have the same exact moon set hills and rocks in them ... They were IDENTICAL in every respect , so nasa claimed it was just POOR EDITING ...

The conspiracy believers think it was a mistake on nasa's part that the same section of the moon set was used twice for two different occasions ... So which was ? .... nasa's bad editing or a moon set ? ... nasa's bad editing or Reniert switching the voice overs for no reason ? ... It should be interesting to see if Hawkins comes up with any more proof of nasa's poor editing ... I plan to buy his book , so I will keep you all posted in what I might find out .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawkins claims that nasa did this poor job of editing on other film footage as well, in using different voice overs for the same scene .... and after watching the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon' , I saw where nasa even ADMITTED TO POOR EDITING in attempting to cover their asses when film footage from two different EVA locations, shot on two different days , were found to have the same exact moon set hills and rocks in them ... They were IDENTICAL in every respect , so nasa claimed it was just POOR EDITING ...

If the footage you are now referring to is the one I think, and I'm pretty sure it is, it is yet another case where a documentary (quite possibly the same one, I am checking on this) not made by NASA screwed up. Research into it confirmed that NASA had the footage correctly labeled and has always been correctly labeled and this documentary made a mistake. It happens sometimes. subsequent versions of the same documentary corrected this error. But to sum it up, it was not a NASA error.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must you all constantly mis-quote what I post ? ... Here is what I said about web sites and photos disappearing from the internet .

The post quoted you exactly. No "mis-quote".

"Certain web sites have been completely removed which are damaging to nasa and the Apollo 'moon landings' .... official Apollo photos which showed major amamolies have since been deleted from official nasa sites also ... It's called ... SUPPRESSION OF DAMAGING EVIDENCE .... and nasa is hard at work doing that all over the internet ."

And then there are the Apollo photos which contain anomalies which are found on certain conspiracy sites , but when you look for the high resolution originals on the Apollo Image Galley , they are no longer there .... This is what I mean about suppression of conspiracy evidence .

Kipp Teague constantly updates his site, adding new material all the time. The point, however, is that Kipp's website is NOT an "official NASA" website. If you want a high-resolution version of an image, all you have to do is... ask NASA for it. That's a difficult process, huh? That's what people like Kipp, Michael Light, the LPI, etc do.

And while we are on this subject, let's make it perfectly clear that ALL the images from Apollo are available to the public... of any country. Even the spoiled ones. Everything.

But getting back to Reinart's documentary .... I think all of you nasa defenders are clutching at some pretty slippery straws here .... If you really believe that he would have removed official nasa voice overs from certain footage and then gone searching for a different voice overs that he thought were more exciting or interesting for that footage , then you all need a reality check .... Artistic license is one thing ... but what you are suggesting does not even make any sense .

Almost all of the manned space documentries show examples of artistic license, where the footage is not actually the one described by the narration, where the radio transmissions are not synched with the footage. The exceptions are things like Spacecraft Films series, where people want to specifically view events without the artistic effects added for the casual viewers. NASA never claims those examples are being an accurate depection of events. If something appears anomolous, you check the original footage with the air/ground transmissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane

If you can't find a photo you are looking for on the ALSJ, try changing the case of the mission number in the url. I've found a few redundant links that way.

Here's the links I use - they are all useful in their own way. The LPI is good as you can click on the thumbnails, but it doesn't have as many hi-res images as the ALSJ. The archive site that Gavsto.com links to is excellent, but not very user friendly.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/ - click on 70mm Hasselblad

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html - select your mission then click on Image Library

http://apollo.gavsto.com/ Select mission roll and frame number. This links to the following site, but has a much more user friendly interface - http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/. NOTE - if you request the ultra high resolution image, it may take a few minutes to appear as it needs to be retrieved from an archive site. It will only be available from the URL for 24 hours, then will need to be requested again. (Note - not all photos are stored on this site at present).

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html - Click on Full Hasselblad Magazines

Another useful respource for seeing how versions of images have changed over the years is the Wayback mahine - this is peculiar with it's case-sensitivity as well.

http://www.archive.org/index.php

For example, look at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hq...s11-40-5903.jpg

The first image may look prettier due to the way it's cropped, but the last version of this image is much more accurately cropped, and serves its purpose far better as an historical record.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...