Ray Peat Recommends This Analysis of Moon Landing Fakery

[tankasnowgod]

I happened to see part of a documentary called "Moon Landing - The World's Greatest Hoax?" which had a ridiculous experiment in it performed by Jay Windley (who I first heard of in the Dave McGowan series). In it, they attempt to "debunk" the idea that you could photograph stars on the moon. Linked at approximate start time, about 35 minutes in-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW__ZtZApo&t=2070s


First, there is Dr. Emily Brundsen's claim about overexposure, and that "they weren't trying to take pictures of the stars, but pictures of themselves, the lander and the surface." Of course, the first, incredibly obvious question is "Why DIDN'T they ever attempt to take a picture of the stars?" They had six freakin' missions to take one lousy picture of the sky with the extra exposure time needed, and they never bothered to even attempt it. With no atmosphere, the stars should have been both bigger and brighter than anything seen here on Earth. There was no Hubble telescope at the time, so no other way to get star pictures free of the atmosphere. Then again, maybe astronauts, astronomers, and people who work at NASA really aren't all that interested in space.

But next is an absolute classic, the "experiment" performed by Windley. Looking at the footage, I couldn't help but notice that this goofy experiment was conducted right here on Earth, a planet that just happens to have an atmosphere. They didn't appear to control for this variable, nor could they have. Second, it's obvious that Windbag isn't wearing any sort of spacesuit, nor attempting replicate how the astronauts would have had to take the photos. McGowan suggested using a pair of heavy gardening gloves and a motorcycle helmet, which seems like a reasonable way to simulate the eye and hand impairment the astronauts would have been working with. But Windley is just there, with bare hands and face, breathing in that awesome Earth atmosphere that also is reducing the visible light from the stars.

"Will this experiment be enough to invalidate the conspiracy theorists claims?"

Um, no. In fact, it bolsters those claims.

Windley looks like he took at least a couple photographs that seem pretty similar to NASA's "official" moon photos. None of the photos Windley took say anything about how stars would or would not appear in photos taken on the moon. But, he did show that even an amatuer using camera equipment available in the 60's could take convincing "Moon Landing" photos similar to NASA's, right here on Earth. Even outside, in a "desert." Good job, Jay.

 

[joaquin]

Of course, the first, incredibly obvious question is "Why DIDN'T they ever attempt to take a picture of the stars?"

Your tactic here is not as clever as you imagine. It is obvious to reasonable minds that the missions to the moon was about the moon, all about the moon.

 

[gunther]

First, there is Dr. Emily Brundsen's claim about overexposure, and that "they weren't trying to take pictures of the stars, but pictures of themselves, the lander and the surface." Of course, the first, incredibly obvious question is "Why DIDN'T they ever attempt to take a picture of the stars?" They had six freakin' missions to take one lousy picture of the sky with the extra exposure time needed, and they never bothered to even attempt it. With no atmosphere, the stars should have been both bigger and brighter than anything seen here on Earth. There was no Hubble telescope at the time, so no other way to get star pictures free of the atmosphere. Then again, maybe astronauts, astronomers, and people who work at NASA really aren't all that interested in space.

That is a big question.
.
The same question applies to the International Space Station. Wouldn't a telescope be one of the first things one would think to tinker with? Why haven't any of the astronauts snapped a pic of the stars with their iPhone?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Your tactic here is not as clever as you imagine. It is obvious to reasonable minds that the missions to the moon was about the moon, all about the moon.

Hmmm. So I guess "view of stars from the moon" has nothing to do with the moon. But golfing and dune buggys do?

It also seems like an argument completely invalidated by the "Earthrise" photo allegedly taken on Apollo 8-

After all, we know lots about the Earth, seeing as we live here. Why bother with a picture of THAT if the missions were "All about the moon?"

And if it is a picture from Apollo 8, that makes the lack of star pictures that much more damning. There were 9 missions that allegedly flew to the moon, and if the ability to take photos of space existed since the very first mission, why didn't any of the crew of ANY of the command modules bother to take any pictures of the stars? While Neil and Buzz were down on the moon golfing and such, Michael Collins must have been relatively bored for those 24 hours, just orbiting the moon. Why didn't he take any pictures of the stars? Or, other planets? Ronald Evans had 3 days to take such a photo (or series of photos), and never bothered.

One more thing, noticed your signature....

It is easier for man to go to the moon than to fake going to the moon.

Obviously, that is a bald faced lie. There have been several fictional movies about going to the moon, many produced before 1968-

Top 8 Moon Landing Movies - ASME

All of those movies were "faked," so it's obvious it is easier to fake going to the moon than actually going there, even if the Apollo missions were legit. Heck, Jay Windley in a "debunking" attempt showed how it would be pretty easy for an amateur to fake moon landing photos right here on Earth! It's true that none of those movies were trying to convince people that they actually went to the moon, so that is a bit more difficult. But, after the Covid con, I would think it would be obvious that you can convince large numbers of people of pretty much anything.

 

[gunther]

Hmmm. So I guess "view of stars from the moon" has nothing to do with the moon. But golfing and dune buggys do?

It also seems like an argument completely invalidated by the "Earthrise" photo allegedly taken on Apollo 8-View attachment 42422

One thing I could never understand about this picture of Earth from the Moon: They landed on a part of the mood facing Earth. So, from where they were on the Moon, Earth would have appeared almost straight up in the sky, not anywhere close to the horizon. Right?

 

[joaquin]

JOAQUIN:
"Your tactic here is not as clever as you imagine. It is obvious to reasonable minds that the missions to the moon was about the moon, all about the moon."

TANK: "Hmmm. So I guess "view of stars from the moon" has nothing to do with the moon. But golfing and dune buggys do?"

The lack of star photographs may be the issue in your mind. But to us up here, the fact that this is a thing to you, a "piece of evidence" -- well, that's the curiosity right there. We are more interested in how your mind operates than trying to convince you of the truth.

If there were stars in the photographs, Tank would just claim they were added in later during editing.

 

[tankasnowgod]

JOAQUIN:
"Your tactic here is not as clever as you imagine. It is obvious to reasonable minds that the missions to the moon was about the moon, all about the moon."

TANK: "Hmmm. So I guess "view of stars from the moon" has nothing to do with the moon. But golfing and dune buggys do?"

The lack of star photographs may be the issue in your mind. But to us up here, the fact that this is a thing to you, a "piece of evidence" -- well, that's the curiosity right there. We are more interested in how your mind operates than trying to convince you of the truth.

If there were stars in the photographs, Tank would just claim they were added in later during editing.

In a sense, you are right that I will never blindly trust any part of the Federal Government. They are clearly deceptive in many ways.

Also, I mentioned many other potential issues with the moon journeys that you continue to ignore, like the fuel issue, the distance issue, the radiation issue, the extreme temperature issue, the fact that first Command Module and LEM docking supposedly took place in the outer Van Allen belt, the lack of return trips issue, the issue with NASA and their contractors losing everything in regards to the moon missions (despite obvious historical, scientific, and economic value), but yes, I think the lack of any effort to take any pictures of the stars picture is also a damning issue. There was no Hubble telescope in the 60's, so those would have been some of the most magnificent pictures of the stars available.

NASA spent about $25 Billion dollars on those missions. Seriously, they couldn't find any room in that budget to include some extra film and/or cameras to take pictures of the stars? How many cameras and film could $100,000 buy in the 1960s? If not from the moon itself, from the command module? In the Republic, the Government supposedly are "public servants" to the people. The fact they wasted all that money when they are bankrupt (have been since 1933), and didn't bother to take any pictures of the stars shows how incompetent and/or wasteful NASA is, like many other areas of the Federal Government. I don't know why you want to continue to make excuses for them.

 

[joaquin]

TANK:
"Also, I mentioned many other potential issues with the moon journeys that you continue to ignore,"

Let's address one at a time. Because if each issue by itself has no weight, then piling a string of them together does not change things.

Whether we're adding 3 zeros or a a thousand zeros, the result is still zero.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

 

[tankasnowgod]

TANK:
"Also, I mentioned many other potential issues with the moon journeys that you continue to ignore,"

Let's address one at a time. Because if each issue by itself has no weight, then piling a string of them together does not change things.

Whether we're adding 3 zeros or a a thousand zeros, the result is still zero.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

Okay, so which issue are you going to "address" first?

 

[joaquin]

Okay, where are we on the missing stars? I don't think its an issue at all. In fact, if such a titanic of a hoax could be attempted, why not include some painted in stars?
And what is wrong with the explanation concerning no stars?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Okay, where are we on the missing stars? I don't think its an issue at all. In fact, if such a titanic of a hoax could be attempted, why not include some painted in stars?
And what is wrong with the explanation concerning no stars?

So, the Earth has an atmosphere. The moon does not. Even on Earth, you can see spectacular views of the stars in some locations. But, there are issues here..... light pollution, air pollution, and the atmosphere itself. None of those things exist on the moon (or on the vast majority of the trip to the moon), so the views of the stars should have been more spectacular than what can be seen at any observatory, or any small town with minimal lighting.

So, on the moon, the stars and planets should appear both bigger and brighter than anywhere here on Earth. It's not that EVERY picture shot "on the moon" should have stars on them. But how is there not ANY star visible in ANY photo? You'd think brighter stars might have been been noticeable in some of the shots of just the lunar surface.

And it's incredibly weird that that they never snapped ANY photos of the stars themselves in any of the missions. Since the "Earthrise" photo of Apollo 8 demonstrates that photos can be taken from the Command Module from the beginning (if the missions were legit), that would mean NASA had 9 missions, 90+ days of travel while traversing 4.5 million miles, to take a picture or two (or several hundred) of the stars and other planets. But yet.... nothing. None from the 12 astronauts on the moon, none from the others that were only in the Command Module, nothing.

The Astronauts left in the Command Module had an incredible opportunity, since they orbited the dark side of the moon. With the moon blocking out the sun at that point, the ONLY light left would be the planets and stars. Those could be incredible photos, unmatched even by anything the Hubble has taken. So why didn't they do it? With later missions spending two or three days on the moon, that means the solo astronauts in the Command Module would have had several opportunities over about two weeks worth of time to take pictures of the stars and planets without light coming in from the sun, without an atmosphere fading the light, and probably without light being reflected from Earth, either. A golden opportunity, never presented before nor since. Sooooooo...... why didn't the Command Module Astronauts do it?

That is why I think the lack of stars in EVERY NASA moon photo is an issue.

 

[joaquin]

So the main thing to keep in mind is that the trips to the moon were not meant for taking photographs of the stars.

Yes they did hit some golf balls and ride around but keep in mind, these activities are still germane to the adventure of going to the moon.

Telescopes have been around for a long time and the stars have been observed long before the moon was visited.

The reason that the stars don't show up in the photographs has to do with the settings of the camera. The exposure and aperture settings of a camera will determine how the end result of the photograph turns out.

But here is where things get interesting. There were photos of the stars taken.

 

[tankasnowgod]

So the main thing to keep in mind is that the trips to the moon were not meant for taking photographs of the stars.

Yes they did hit some golf balls and ride around but keep in mind, these activities are still germane to the adventure of going to the moon.

Hitting golf balls to demonstrate lower gravity..... maybe. But how is riding around in a dune buggy in any way "germane?" The risks of transporting that Dune Buggy, especially the possibility of it being jettisoned in flight and damaging the LEM or the fuel tanks seem to outweigh any potential "benefit."

Telescopes have been around for a long time and the stars have been observed long before the moon was visited.

The reason that the stars don't show up in the photographs has to do with the settings of the camera. The exposure and aperture settings of a camera will determine how the end result of the photograph turns out.

But here is where things get interesting. There were photos of the stars taken.

Funny, did you even bother to read my response before responding it? It's almost like this was computer generated, with no real thought put into it.

I notice you said nothing about taking a regular, long exposure picture of the stars from the Command Module, especially from the Astronauts orbiting the Dark Side of the Moon. Is it because "debunking" websites don't have an answer for this? How about relying on your own mind to come up with an answer instead of them?

Also...... why would an "Ultraviolet" camera even be necessary? The light from the stars are visible to the naked eye and regular cameras, here on Earth. Without an Atmosphere, that light should be brighter, and stars should appear to be bigger. Wouldn't the same cameras and film stock be fine? Just use that tripod, set it up in the shadow of the lander, and then point then use the longer exposure settings.

 

[joaquin]

Regarding the dune buggy, they had to have brought that in order to travel a good ways while there. With limited oxygen it seems like a good call. Plus, seeing them ride around in it would be good PR, getting folks interested in NASA and all .

TANK:
"Funny, did you even bother to read my response before responding it? It's almost like this was computer generated, with no real thought put into it."

This sounds like the kind of statement I would make in a debate. I've known those types that don't really read and just give knee-jerk replies.

TANK: "I notice you said nothing about taking a regular, long exposure picture of the stars from the Command Module, especially from the Astronauts orbiting the Dark Side of the Moon. Is it because "debunking" websites don't have an answer for this? How about relying on your own mind to come up with an answer instead of them?"

I thought I gave an answer in that photographing the stars was not the mission. If the claim is that the whole thing was fake because the background is black and there are no stars, well that has been addressed. Now, in addition to providing photos of stars taken while on the moon, you say, well why didn't they take photos from the dark side of the moon?

It feels like a combination of no answer is good enough and moving the goal posts.

TANK:
"Also...... why would an "Ultraviolet" camera even be necessary? The light from the stars are visible to the naked eye and regular cameras, here on Earth. Without an Atmosphere, that light should be brighter, and stars should appear to be bigger. Wouldn't the same cameras and film stock be fine? Just use that tripod, set it up in the shadow of the lander, and then point then use the longer exposure settings."

You're wanting me to prove what indeed you are supposed to prove. Good one! But I've had plenty of caffeine today, I am fully awake. Try that trick on someone else.

 

[Elchupanibrain]

Hmmm. So I guess "view of stars from the moon" has nothing to do with the moon. But golfing and dune buggys do?

It also seems like an argument completely invalidated by the "Earthrise" photo allegedly taken on Apollo 8-View attachment 42422

After all, we know lots about the Earth, seeing as we live here. Why bother with a picture of THAT if the missions were "All about the moon?"

And if it is a picture from Apollo 8, that makes the lack of star pictures that much more damning. There were 9 missions that allegedly flew to the moon, and if the ability to take photos of space existed since the very first mission, why didn't any of the crew of ANY of the command modules bother to take any pictures of the stars? While Neil and Buzz were down on the moon golfing and such, Michael Collins must have been relatively bored for those 24 hours, just orbiting the moon. Why didn't he take any pictures of the stars? Or, other planets? Ronald Evans had 3 days to take such a photo (or series of photos), and never bothered.

One more thing, noticed your signature....



Obviously, that is a bald faced lie. There have been several fictional movies about going to the moon, many produced before 1968-

Top 8 Moon Landing Movies - ASME

All of those movies were "faked," so it's obvious it is easier to fake going to the moon than actually going there, even if the Apollo missions were legit. Heck, Jay Windley in a "debunking" attempt showed how it would be pretty easy for an amateur to fake moon landing photos right here on Earth! It's true that none of those movies were trying to convince people that they actually went to the moon, so that is a bit more difficult. But, after the Covid con, I would think it would be obvious that you can convince large numbers of people of pretty much anything.

stupid question... shouldn't the earth be bigger on this picture? supposedly the diameter is 4x bigger than that of the moon

 

[Morgan]

Just need some balloons


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHWRVXyniK8

 

[Adf]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If by "initial hunch," you mean mainstream things I learned before questioning them, it's probably about 90% or so. Usually, it's more along the lines of "Why do people think the Moon Landings were faked? I should look into that more, maybe they have some interesting points" or "I gotta know what they are basing this on." So, most of the time, it comes from a position of uncertainty, so I don't know if it's really a "hunch."

I was pretty sure the entire Covid nonsense was overblown from the beginning (and my posts from Jan and Feb 2020 will totally back that up). I didn't think they would ever do something crazy like lockdowns or mask requirements at that time, but I was certainly wrong about that. If you want to call it a "hunch" that Covid was a scam, well, I would call that hunch correct, but had no idea the magnitude or places it would lead me.

The only other one I can think of where I went in with some initial "hunch" or bias was the Michael Jackson allegations. I had heard the rumors about him for 25 years, like pretty much everyone else. When "Leaving Neverland" came out, that triggered the thought "Man, I bet he's innocent, networks like HBO run cover for pedophiles, they don't expose them." While you can never prove someone completely innocent (hence, why the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven being so important), it did become clear that most of the stories and allegations around Michael Jackson were fabricated extortion attempts. The DA was even caught red handed faking evidence in his 2005 trial-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OvxA7Yxtio


It's more than just that clip, but I think that's a pretty good example.

+1 on the Michael Jackson pedophilia being a hoax/hit job. I loved MJ as a kid, always sang and danced to his music. I never believed for a second what anyone said about him. There's a very good documentary showing evidence that he was targeted by the industry. He had some songs that shows he was certainly trying to show the world the horrific evil happening. I think Little Susie is likely the song that got him killed.

This documentary has some of the children who went to see him in Neverland. This documentary has true evidence to his innocence, as apposed to the hearsay and little evidence Leaving Neverland had to his guilt.

For anyone who's interested...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM

 

[Karlx]

Unlike what flatsos claim in their schizovideos, there is aerial photo evidence of correct curvature and correct perspective (Horizon not at eye level).

Eric Dubay is a lying effeminate weirdo who also made a 2-hour video called 'Jesus Never Existed.' There are vanishingly few academics who believe that, so consider what kind of person you're dealing with. He otherwise pushes a smorgasbord of incoherent new age spirituality in place of doctrinaire Christianity, which itself is globalist in its aims and origins. So he's selling people on enlightenment while throwing a bunch of CIA and Big Sur thinktank ideas at people. Flat-earth also has always been linked to intelligence services.