Wikileaks supposedly releases unused moon landing footage

Searching

Well-known member
Messages
334
Reactions
1,944
For the most part, this footage is just edited together with a director's voice over, but there are 2 main things about the moon landing that don't sit right with me.

1. The horizon behind and in front of the astronauts (as seen through the mirrored reflection of the face shield) is extremely close. The horizon should be further away. We are told that the moon is a quarter of the size of Earth, and I take that into consideration, but it looks like it was easier for them to just black out the background rather than build a background moon stage.
Notice how the horizon behind Armstrong is always perfectly level with the horizon in front of him as shown in his face shield's reflection.

21669
21670

2. This is the smoking gun for me. Here is the restored Apollo EVA on NASA's youtube channel:

Starting at 21:35, as Armstrong climbs down the ladder, I can see the horizon through his leg, as if he is a ghost. Does being on the moon make people transparent?

So, I gotta ask, why didn't NASA fix a transparent Armstrong before putting this footage out to be analyzed? Some answers I have thought of are:
A. They don't notice it.
B. They don't care because they know most everyone suffers from cognitive dissonace.
C. They want to find out who can see through the farce.

None of these answers make much sense, though. The moon landing is just a scene in the big picture show that is life. War locations are called theaters. Lincoln was shot in a theater by an actor. Reagan was an actor. Trump is a reality tv star.... We live on a soundstage.
 
Last edited:

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,319
For the most part, this footage is just edited together with a director's voice over, but there are 2 main things about the moon landing that don't sit right with me.

1. The horizon behind and in front of the astronauts (as seen through the mirrored reflection of the face shield) is extremely close. The horizon should be further away. We are told that the moon is a quarter of the size of Earth, and I take that into consideration, but it looks like it was easier for them to just black out the background rather than build a background moon stage.
Notice how the horizon behind Armstrong is always perfectly level with the horizon in front of him as shown in his face shield's reflection.


2. This is the smoking gun for me. Here is the restored Apollo EVA on NASA's youtube channel:

Starting at 21:35, as Armstrong climbs down the ladder, I can see the horizon through his leg, as if he is a ghost. Does being on the moon make people transparent?

So, I gotta ask, why didn't NASA fix a transparent Armstrong before putting this footage out to be analyzed? Some answers I have thought of are:
A. They don't notice it.
B. They don't care because they know most everyone suffers from cognitive dissonace.
C. They want to find out who can see through the farce.

None of these answers make much sense, though. The moon landing is just a scene in the big picture show that is life. War locations are called theaters. Lincoln was shot in a theater by an actor. Reagan was an actor. Trump is a reality tv star.... We live on a soundstage.
Looks like a front projection at 21.35.... 👍
 

Mabzynn

Well-known member
Messages
148
Reactions
604
For the most part, this footage is just edited together with a director's voice over, but there are 2 main things about the moon landing that don't sit right with me.

1. The horizon behind and in front of the astronauts (as seen through the mirrored reflection of the face shield) is extremely close. The horizon should be further away. We are told that the moon is a quarter of the size of Earth, and I take that into consideration, but it looks like it was easier for them to just black out the background rather than build a background moon stage.
Notice how the horizon behind Armstrong is always perfectly level with the horizon in front of him as shown in his face shield's reflection.


2. This is the smoking gun for me. Here is the restored Apollo EVA on NASA's youtube channel:

Starting at 21:35, as Armstrong climbs down the ladder, I can see the horizon through his leg, as if he is a ghost. Does being on the moon make people transparent?

So, I gotta ask, why didn't NASA fix a transparent Armstrong before putting this footage out to be analyzed? Some answers I have thought of are:
A. They don't notice it.
B. They don't care because they know most everyone suffers from cognitive dissonace.
C. They want to find out who can see through the farce.

None of these answers make much sense, though. The moon landing is just a scene in the big picture show that is life. War locations are called theaters. Lincoln was shot in a theater by an actor. Reagan was an actor. Trump is a reality tv star.... We live on a soundstage.
55:45 for the call with the president, you can see through the astronaut

105:45 can see directly through him again for an extended period of time

Better yet just scan through the video and pay attention to any colors that aren't white while the astronauts are in front of the craft and they're almost always transparent.
 

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
69
Reactions
273
For the most part, this footage is just edited together with a director's voice over, but there are 2 main things about the moon landing that don't sit right with me.

1. The horizon behind and in front of the astronauts (as seen through the mirrored reflection of the face shield) is extremely close. The horizon should be further away. We are told that the moon is a quarter of the size of Earth, and I take that into consideration, but it looks like it was easier for them to just black out the background rather than build a background moon stage.
Notice how the horizon behind Armstrong is always perfectly level with the horizon in front of him as shown in his face shield's reflection.


2. This is the smoking gun for me. Here is the restored Apollo EVA on NASA's youtube channel:

Starting at 21:35, as Armstrong climbs down the ladder, I can see the horizon through his leg, as if he is a ghost. Does being on the moon make people transparent?

So, I gotta ask, why didn't NASA fix a transparent Armstrong before putting this footage out to be analyzed? Some answers I have thought of are:
A. They don't notice it.
B. They don't care because they know most everyone suffers from cognitive dissonace.
C. They want to find out who can see through the farce.

None of these answers make much sense, though. The moon landing is just a scene in the big picture show that is life. War locations are called theaters. Lincoln was shot in a theater by an actor. Reagan was an actor. Trump is a reality tv star.... We live on a soundstage.
I noticed that the shadow of the LEM hadn't budged an inch for the 2+ hours that the camera was fixed on it in this clip also. That seems a bit unreasonable, or am I off here?

Also, thanks for sharing, I've never seen this full clip before. It seems like there was anomolous ghosting through out the entire clip. What I can't reconcile is what objects are a part of which layer, if camera trickery was at play. The astronauts do seem to appear to move in and out of the shadow of the LEM, for example. And, it also begs the question, what were they trying to accomplish if this footage was faked in such a manner, as there clearly *seems* to be plenty of footage of astronauts, a LEM, and the "surface of the moon" all in one shot in much of the other videos out there.
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
143
Reactions
323
The release through "Wikileaks" is IMHO already a dead giveaway.
Wikileaks is a limited hangout, created to distract us, and blow off steam.
Remember - Assange publicly stated his support for the official 9/11 Afghan Cavemen conspiracy theory, and all the Cartoon Physics implications this has.
 

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
69
Reactions
273
Whether or not one decides to ascribe credibility to wikileaks-sourced information, there's nothing that substantiates that this footage was released by them in the first place, for better or worse. Nothing about the title that claims that "wikileaks releases unused footage" is backed by anything at all. It might as well say "Barack Obama releases moon landing footage shot by aliens from Sirius B".

To be sure, I am not validating wikileaks as a trusted source as it surely has been co-opted at best, but this montage seems to be complete disinfo (with no proof that wikileaks had anything to do with its release) and seeks to tarnish the credibility of everything it touches, in my opinion. I know it is clear to many here, but to just speak to the obvious points - there is nothing "unused" about these clips, it's just a supercut of previously available footage with unsubstantiated extra footage and audio overdubs from who knows where.
 
Last edited:

codis

Well-known member
Messages
143
Reactions
323
To be sure, I am not validating wikileaks as a trusted source as it surely has been co-opted at best, but this montage seems to be complete disinfo (with no proof that wikileaks had anything to do with its release) and seeks to tarnish the credibility of everything it touches, in my opinion.
Definitely.
True "whistleblowers" have no persisting web presence, and end up in burning car crashed against a bridge pile.
Or fall off a tall building, or suddenly have lethal heart attacks.
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
143
Reactions
323
Most important point is - Assange is still alive.
And parading up and down through the media.
Which makes me think he is an act.
Who really knows where he is and what he does while not in front of a camera ?
 

RecycledSoul

Well-known member
Messages
142
Reactions
289
Most important point is - Assange is still alive.
And parading up and down through the media.
Which makes me think he is an act.
Who really knows where he is and what he does while not in front of a camera ?
Wish we knew where the money trail begins. That would speak volumes.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
WarningGuy General 6

Top