Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

This is for choos, and choos alone.

Hi choos, many times in this thread we have discussed the plausibility of remote controlled, automated, landing machines on the surface of the moon.

Well choos, I now have a newspaper article on my hard drive that proves, once and for all, that Howard Hughes was building robots with TV cameras as early as 1959. And you know what else? In this same newspaper article it is hinted that robots with TV cameras could be used in moon missions.

SayonaraJupiter

the Remote Controlled Apollo theory

I have a newspaper account that supports my theory that Howard Hughes was building robots with TV cameras as early as in 1959.

If you would like to see the article give me a star.

edit on 10/4/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

o yes bring it on sayonarajupiter we wanna see that you got the little puppy all excited now

reply to post by geobro


It's the Mobot. Kind of hard to leave footprints with wheels. I still want to see where Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon developed a man shaped robot capable of hopping, not attached to a power supply by cables, that could have gone to the moon and left tracks there.

Zaphod58
reply to post by geobro

 

It's the Mobot. Kind of hard to leave footprints with wheels. I still want to see where Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon developed a man shaped robot capable of hopping, not attached to a power supply by cables, that could have gone to the moon and left tracks there.

Good Job Zaphod!!

turbonium1

Any object will go higher on the moon than on Earth, under the same conditions......except for dust, then?

Dust will go no higher on the moon than it goes on Earth, yes?

what are you saying?? if the same force is applied to an object on the moon as with earth, than it will go higher and stay higher on the moon than it will on earth.. the only exception is very light weight objects that can be affected by the atmosphere.

But dust will settle faster on the moon than on Earth, right?

correct

The atmosphere has no effect on dust being lower from the ground than it would without an atmosphere. But it does have an effect later on, when settling back to the surface!!

Amazing, for sure!

the unsettling force will be lower on the moon, due to less power being needed to move since the moons gravity is lower than on earth.. if however the same force is applied on an object on the moon it will go higher. An atmosphere can and will have an affect on how high dust can rise, just look at dust storms.

Zaphod58
reply to post by geobro

 

It's the Mobot. Kind of hard to leave footprints with wheels. I still want to see where Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon developed a man shaped robot capable of hopping, not attached to a power supply by cables, that could have gone to the moon and left tracks there.

The NASA catalogue images are studio shots. Footprints are made in the studio. Area shots are made by the remote controlled Surveyor landers, and yes, they were capable of hopping.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


so like these mobots.. how did they do the apollo 11,12 and i think 14 landing sites??

these mobots are tracked. 11,12 and maybe 14 only have boot prints?

transformers?? remember this is howard hughes we are talking about so probably.

afterall they did have a time machine to know the weather patterns several months or years in advanced, and the video editing software used was several decades advanced.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


No, they were capable of lifting off, moving over to a new site, and landing again. Not hopping. Notice the fact that in your article hop is in quotes. That means that it's not a real hop, it's flying to a new site.

SayonaraJupiter


The NASA catalogue images are studio shots. Footprints are made in the studio. Area shots are made by the remote controlled Surveyor landers, and yes, they were capable of hopping.

They way Surveyor moved had nothing to do with hopping -- at least not in the context you are talking about.

Surveyor fired its rockets, lifted 10 feet off the Moon, hovered, then landed in a new spot. This was done as a test/precursor to the then-future need for the Apollo LEM to lift off the Moon again to return the astronauts to earth.

I have no idea how you are equating Surveyor's liftoff experiment to a hypothetical robot hopping on the moon making boot tracks.

Showed you guys how Howard Hughes ripped off the government for $365,000,000 worth of Surveyor hardware. Showed you guys Howard Hughes research was building robots with TV cameras on them in 1959.
Showed you guys how Surveyor can hop around on the moon. The Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax is imminent.

SayonaraJupiter
Showed you guys how Howard Hughes ripped off the government for $365,000,000 worth of Surveyor hardware. Showed you guys Howard Hughes research was building robots with TV cameras on them in 1959.
Showed you guys how Surveyor can hop around on the moon. The Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax is imminent.

I fail to see how landing Surveyor craft on the moon counts as ripping anyone off, given that this is what was required and what the money was for. In fact as you're claiming it had far more capabilities than NASA paid for they got a pretty good deal.

You've been claiming that disclosure is imminent for years, but unfortunately for you full disclosure was decades ago. Apollo happened as described in every history book. Everything else is in your head.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You have a vastly different definition of hopping than everyone else does then (as usual). Hopping does not mean taking off, moving over, and landing again.

SayonaraJupiter
Showed you guys how Howard Hughes ripped off the government for $365,000,000 worth of Surveyor hardware. Showed you guys Howard Hughes research was building robots with TV cameras on them in 1959.
Showed you guys how Surveyor can hop around on the moon. The Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax is imminent.

The first walking robot was invented in 1989 it was called ghengas. Second mobot was not a robot it was the name of the department created at MIT. They did however make a robot in 1959 but it required a huge room since its brains sat on a computer. And well in 1959 took a huge room just to make a calculator. It didnt have an internal power supply because battery technology was no where near today. And basically it was huge a forklift with a tv camera mounted and 2 mechanical arms that could be moved up and down. remote control consisted of typing commands into the computer in a string of codes they invented LISP for programming AIs still used today in fact. So unless they were going to run cables to the moon for your robot to go to the moon wouldnt be much help just sit there.The original idea behind this robot was to work in an irradiated environment being able to send it in a nuclear facility with a damaged core. This also tells you no computer chips were on the unit.

onebigmonkey
What is significant is not so much the height that is achieved, but how long it is aloft.

Actually, the height achieved is just as significant as the time it's aloft. They are both relevant to this issue.

You can't ignore or dismiss something because it doesn't support your argument. And in this case, you're trying to dismiss the lack of height reached by the dust in the Apollo clips. It's a problem you can't refute, so you're trying to shrug it off as insignificant. No go.

onebigmonkey
Whether dust goes higher on the moon than Earth is just as affected by atmosphere as it is settling - this is why you get billowing dust clouds on Earth, and why dust can remain suspended for years on Earth.

No, an atmosphere will interfere with dust as it's thrown upward/outward, and while it's aloft, and while it's settling.

So Earth's atmosphere will have a limiting effect on the height/length reached by the dust.

onebigmonkey


If you can find, in any of the hours (and I mean hours) of EVA footage of dust that remains suspended in air, or of billowing dust clouds, then go ahead and post it here and you get the prize.

There's maybe a few minutes in the "hours" of footage where any dust is being thrown upward, so let's get that straight.

And as I mentioned, the dust from the LM 'takeoff/landing' can't even be used, because it could easily be a special effect added on later, as I think it is. All that's left is the rover footage, which is not much.

Do you think all dust thrown up on Earth will form into billowing dust clouds? Think again...

www.youtube.com...

The above video shows dust behaving much the same as Apollo's dust. We see lots of dust thrown up by the dune buggies - it reaches similar heights to Apollo's dust, and it does NOT remain suspended in mid-air any longer than Apollo's dust does.

So Apollo's dust behaves no different than dust on Earth. It would behave very differently if it was on the moon. So it's obviously filmed on Earth

reply to post by turbonium1

The above video shows dust behaving much the same as Apollo's dust. We see lots of dust thrown up by the dune buggies

That isn't dust. That is sand.

This is dust.

reply to post by turbonium1

There's maybe a few minutes in the "hours" of footage where any dust is being thrown upward, so let's get that straight.

Nice one, turbo.

I'll even bet, that you could run all the known Apollo footage and come up with a quantity X for the number of times an astronaut boot kicked up the dust. That number X could be quantified and analyzed.

Unfortunately, that is waaaaay beyond my research capabilities. (If I had a team of researchers... maybe... ) But it would be within the capability of Arizona State University who has special access to NASA archives and it also has people assigned to the erasing of the reseau pattern marks, erasing the cross hairs, from all the Apollo images. They could be re-tasked.... to count the number of times an astronaut boot kicked up the dust!!

turbonium1

onebigmonkey
What is significant is not so much the height that is achieved, but how long it is aloft.

Actually, the height achieved is just as significant as the time it's aloft. They are both relevant to this issue.

You can't ignore or dismiss something because it doesn't support your argument. And in this case, you're trying to dismiss the lack of height reached by the dust in the Apollo clips. It's a problem you can't refute, so you're trying to shrug it off as insignificant. No go.

Actually I'm not ignoring anything, I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. I am refuting your argument by pointing out how dust behaves in the Earth's atmosphere and how it doesn't behave that way on the moon. On the moon dust, when disturbed, rises, then falls. It is not suspended in air, it is not carried aloft by air currents. It rises as far as Newton's laws of motions will allow and then settles according to gravity. Find anything in the Apollo videos where dust is suspended in air.

onebigmonkey
Whether dust goes higher on the moon than Earth is just as affected by atmosphere as it is settling - this is why you get billowing dust clouds on Earth, and why dust can remain suspended for years on Earth.

No, an atmosphere will interfere with dust as it's thrown upward/outward, and while it's aloft, and while it's settling.

So Earth's atmosphere will have a limiting effect on the height/length reached by the dust.

You just said what I said and then disagreed with me. Atmosphere interferes with dust - it will carry it up and keep it aloft longer and make it disperse further from its point of origin. Find anywhere in the Apollo footage where this happens.

onebigmonkey


If you can find, in any of the hours (and I mean hours) of EVA footage of dust that remains suspended in air, or of billowing dust clouds, then go ahead and post it here and you get the prize.

There's maybe a few minutes in the "hours" of footage where any dust is being thrown upward, so let's get that straight.

Yes, hours of footage. Transmitted live. So find it, then you'll have your proof.

And as I mentioned, the dust from the LM 'takeoff/landing' can't even be used, because it could easily be a special effect added on later, as I think it is. All that's left is the rover footage, which is not much.

So now who's dismissing evidence because it doesn't suit them. Prove how it was added afterwards. Where? By whom? When?

There are hours of rover footage. Hours of them driving around. On Earth they would be surrounded by dust in that footage. Where are the dust clouds?

Do you think all dust thrown up on Earth will form into billowing dust clouds? Think again...

www.youtube.com...

The above video shows dust behaving much the same as Apollo's dust. We see lots of dust thrown up by the dune buggies - it reaches similar heights to Apollo's dust, and it does NOT remain suspended in mid-air any longer than Apollo's dust does.

That isn't dust. If it was dust you wouldn't be able to see a damned thing, so it's sand sized material. If it's sand on the moon and not dust you need to look at how far the sand rises and how quickly it settles. Hey guess what, arcs of sand from the rover wheels rise further than they would on Earth and take longer to settle. You can also look at how the soil is disturbed by the astronauts as they move around - it does the same. There is no dust cloud, but what is kicked up travels further than it would on Earth. Your problem there is that there was a lot of very fine dust - the astronaut suits got covered in it, so where are the dust clouds?

So Apollo's dust behaves no different than dust on Earth. It would behave very differently if it was on the moon. So it's obviously filmed on Earth

No, it doesn't, because it wasn't. Find the proof.

reply to post by turbonium1

Sorry but your video is of several dune buggys traversing through sand. The Moon's dust is much, much smaller than the average grain of sand. It has the texture of talc or fine portland cement and would look more like this in an atmosphere:



The Moon's atmosphere is all but non-existent. However, your video does show the sand forming a parabolic arc as it comes off the tires. As you can see where I have highlighted them with the green indicators:


This can be seen at approximately 0:24 seconds.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by turbonium1

 

There's maybe a few minutes in the "hours" of footage where any dust is being thrown upward, so let's get that straight.

Nice one, turbo.

I'll even bet, that you could run all the known Apollo footage and come up with a quantity X for the number of times an astronaut boot kicked up the dust. That number X could be quantified and analyzed.

Unfortunately, that is waaaaay beyond my research capabilities. (If I had a team of researchers... maybe... ) But it would be within the capability of Arizona State University who has special access to NASA archives and it also has people assigned to the erasing of the reseau pattern marks, erasing the cross hairs, from all the Apollo images. They could be re-tasked.... to count the number of times an astronaut boot kicked up the dust!!



Watching youtube is beyond you? There are hours of footage of astronauts moving and driving around. Dust clouds. Any time you like.

Phage
That isn't dust. That is sand.

edit on 10/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Then Apollo probably used sand, too.

Thanks for the info