Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1

Surely you can backpeddle faster than that.

Do you wish the first Apollo Mission hadn't reached the moon??

Captain Kirk - RISK IS OUR BUSINESS [X-SECT]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AHiuyuhjbQ
www.youtube.com...

Gibborium
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.

As I said, Apollo likely used sand in their fake footage, too.

Now, you've shown it has the same 'arc' shape, too.

Thanks.

Phage
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Surely you can backpeddle faster than that.

The problem is in assuming it has to be lunar dust, which it wouldn't be in a fake.

If you don't like it, too bad.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

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

No. I don't consider youtube to be source material when it comes to serious questions about Apollo film footage. In my entire history of ATS I have never referred to youtube as valid source material for analyzing film footage.

Here are some examples of valid source material, but only when the file is streamed from a .gov server.






If you watched some of these early Apollo films you can see how easily it is to edit film footage and audio clips to create a movie with more dramatic effect. These are the same type of propaganda films that were screened to American school kids through out the 1970's and 1980's.

I think the Apollo Defenders have not read any books on propaganda and how it works.

turbonium1
As I said, Apollo likely used sand in their fake footage, too.

Now, you've shown it has the same 'arc' shape, too.

Thanks.

Geeze, if there was only some way we could use the shape of these arcs, and compare them somehow... If only, the strength of gravity was encoded somehow into their shapes... If only it had already been explained in this thread exactly how to do this....

Ah, well, I guess we'll never know.

Well, you'll never know, apparently.

Because you won't do it.

Even though I explained how.

You people won't do any real science to try to prove your points, is what I'm getting at, in case it's isn't clear.

reply to post by Moduli


turbonium1 doesnt understand basic physics.. given that he has enough trouble with basic maths this shouldnt come as a surprise.

must remember according to him you can walk faster on the moon than you can on earth, and by extention you can run faster on the moon than on earth.. even though both instances are governed by gravity.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

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

No. I don't consider youtube to be source material when it comes to serious questions about Apollo film footage. In my entire history of ATS I have never referred to youtube as valid source material for analyzing film footage.

Here are some examples of valid source material, but only when the file is streamed from a .gov server.

If you watched some of these early Apollo films you can see how easily it is to edit film footage and audio clips to create a movie with more dramatic effect. These are the same type of propaganda films that were screened to American school kids through out the 1970's and 1980's.

I think the Apollo Defenders have not read any books on propaganda and how it works.

Oh I've watched all of those, and it's rather presumptious of you to assume I haven't. My website contains material obtained through hours of searching through that evidence. I know how video clips are quite often used in them out of context, one mission substituted for another in order to provide a narrative. I've also watched hours of uninterrupted footage, not just on youtube but also from government sites, or like the Apollo 11 Facts Project available on archive.org.

Youtube is a convenient source, but just because a video is on there it doesn't mean it is fake. Unfortunately for you all the footage in the Apollo films you quote there is genuine, and is demonstrably genuine, because it contains things that can not be done in an Earth environment, and shows things that can only have been filmed on the moon.

F4Driver
reply to post by ppk55

 

THERE IS A REVEALING DOCUMENTRY THAT TELLS THAT THE ORIGINAL LANDING, WAS ACTUALLY FILMED IN A CLOSED STAGE IN ENGLAND BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE MOVIE "SPACE 2001"

THE ACTORS WERE CIA. ALL SINGLE AND LATER ELIMINATED TO MAINTAIN SECRECY... THE DIRECTOR NEVER LEFT HIS HOME AGAIN UNTIL HIS NATURAL DEATH.. HIS WIFE CONFIRMED THE DOCUMENTRY'S FACTS.

THIS WAS ORDERED BY NIXON AND KISSINGER, AND CARRIED OF BY RUMSFELT AND THE CIA IN CASE THE MOON TV TRANSMISSIONS WERE BAD OR IF THE MISSION WENT BAD THE DEAL WAS TO ACT LIKE THE LANDING WAS MADE AND THE CREW AND SHIP WERE LOST ON RETURNING.

THEY ACTUALLY DID GO TO THE MOON BUT NONE OF THEIR PICTURES OR FILM SURVIVED THE SUN'S LIGHT AND RADIATION EFFECT.

You uh, talk to your mother like that ?



- SN

F4Driver

THERE IS A REVEALING DOCUMENTRY THAT TELLS THAT THE ORIGINAL LANDING, WAS ACTUALLY FILMED IN A CLOSED STAGE IN ENGLAND BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE MOVIE "SPACE 2001"

THE ACTORS WERE CIA. ALL SINGLE AND LATER ELIMINATED TO MAINTAIN SECRECY... THE DIRECTOR NEVER LEFT HIS HOME AGAIN UNTIL HIS NATURAL DEATH.. HIS WIFE CONFIRMED THE DOCUMENTRY'S... FACTS.

Your information is wrong and untrue. Stanley Kubric (the director of 2001: A Space Odyssey) did in fact leave his house after the time of the Apollo landing -- which would be the time he made any alleged secret film of the landing.

Kubric not only left his house after that, but he directed several films between the time of the Apollo landings and his death in 1999. During that time, he directed the following:

A Clockwork Orange in 1971, Barry Lyndon in 1975, The Shining in 1980, Full Metal Jacket in 1987, and Eyes Wide Shut in 1999.


This is one of the problems with many Moon Hoax believers. You make statements such as "the director never left his home again until his natural death" as if they are facts (you even finished that sentence by writing the word "Facts", as if that makes it true), but these are completely untrue statements that are easily verifiable as being completely untrue.

Maybe you are just repeating something you heard or read before, but try a little of your own verification first before repeating things you've read. Do a little fact-checking.

Soylent Green Is People
I'd like to ask you what specific issues do you have with the Moon landing that has you questioning it?

Honestly, I learned at an early age not to be too trusting. I remember being a teenager the night Desert Storm started up. I sat with friends late that night watching CNN. A good friend of mine had a mother who worked the pentagon news desk for a major newspaper.

As things were happening and being reported on CNN, she would sit there on the phone with us (from work) and tell us "Umm, no, that's not the facts I have in front of me." Or "Wow, CNN is not giving you the truth there."

So, suffice it to say I take very little without a healthy dose of salt.

Truthfully, I am not as well versed in the topic as many of you. I never made claims to differ. Rather, I firmly believe that there is a high probability that NASA has much at stake with this, not to mention the US Gov't. Much of what SayonaraJupiter says rings as common sense to me. We are the only ones who have actually been there. Nobody has since left and achieved making it anywhere past orbit. We're now making federal parks to "protect" our historical assets on the moon, including the prohibiting of low level flyovers. Why?

Now, please, before the deluge of "well, we've already told you, so here, I'll tell you AGAIN MR. HB", just accept the fact that I simply do not trust an feel that I have good reason not to trust what we are being told about the moon landings. This is based off of probable cause and simple pieces of history that don't really seem to add up logically to me.

If you don't see it this way, awesome! I am sure going to sleep at night is that much easier for you.

For me, I've lived well by trusting my instincts. My instincts tell me not to trust this scenario or the people behind it. I am not going to dive into the minutae, as what I've given you here should be sufficient. As strongly as you believe the official story, I find reason to doubt it and the veracity of the source.

So, I guess I'll have to be ok with being labelled an HB. Ok. Sounds cool. But, the sad part, is not that I believe we didn't land on the moon. Rather, I don't trust the official story 100%.

So yes, according to everyone's logic, I, must be an official HB.


- SN

SadistNocturne

Soylent Green Is People
I'd like to ask you what specific issues do you have with the Moon landing that has you questioning it?

Honestly, I learned at an early age not to be too trusting. ...

I, too, don't trust anything blindly. That's why I believe the Apollo Moon landings were real, and Why I don't trust the Moon Hoax conspiracy.

The facts about the Moon landing are things you can find out for yourself. You can confirm whether or not you should trust something based on basic knowledge, a good scientific understanding, and critical thinking.

To me, when I apply my understanding of science and my critical thinking skills to the evidence put forth by the Hoax believers, I find what they say less trusting than when I apply that same level of scrutiny to the official story. There is just no "meat" in the Hoax theory -- it's just a bunch of scientifically ignorant rhetoric and wild speculation; why would I trust it?

Soylent Green Is People

SadistNocturne

Soylent Green Is People
I'd like to ask you what specific issues do you have with the Moon landing that has you questioning it?

Honestly, I learned at an early age not to be too trusting. ...

I, too, don't trust anything blindly. That's why I believe the Apollo Moon landings were real, and Why I don't trust the Moon Hoax conspiracy.

The facts about the Moon landing are things you can find out for yourself. You can confirm whether or not you should trust something based on basic knowledge, a good scientific understanding, and critical thinking.

To me, when I apply my understanding of science and my critical thinking skills to the evidence put forth by the Hoax believers, I find what they say less trusting than when I apply that same level of scrutiny to the official story. There is just no "meat" in the Hoax theory -- it's just a bunch of scientifically ignorant rhetoric and wild speculation; why would I trust it?

edit on 10/5/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

DAMN, you just don't get it do you? LOL!!!

I NEVER said I believe one way or the other. I do NOTnecessarily believe there was a hoax. I simply do not trust the source. I DO ask questions, that is all I have done. Nothing more, nothing less.

WTF. Why do I bother.

Last post to this thread folks, seriously. Don't even bother responding and quoting this post at all.

Stick a fork in me, this thread is done for me.



-SN

SadistNocturne

Soylent Green Is People

SadistNocturne

Soylent Green Is People
I'd like to ask you what specific issues do you have with the Moon landing that has you questioning it?

Honestly, I learned at an early age not to be too trusting. ...

I, too, don't trust anything blindly. That's why I believe the Apollo Moon landings were real, and Why I don't trust the Moon Hoax conspiracy.

The facts about the Moon landing are things you can find out for yourself. You can confirm whether or not you should trust something based on basic knowledge, a good scientific understanding, and critical thinking.

To me, when I apply my understanding of science and my critical thinking skills to the evidence put forth by the Hoax believers, I find what they say less trusting than when I apply that same level of scrutiny to the official story. There is just no "meat" in the Hoax theory -- it's just a bunch of scientifically ignorant rhetoric and wild speculation; why would I trust it?

edit on 10/5/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

DAMN, you just don't get it do you? LOL!!!

I NEVER said I believe one way or the other. I do NOTnecessarily believe there was a hoax. I simply do not trust the source. I DO ask questions, that is all I have done. Nothing more, nothing less.

WTF. Why do I bother.

Last post to this thread folks, seriously. Don't even bother responding and quoting this post at all.

Stick a fork in me, this thread is done for me.



-SN

I don't get your response. I've never told you how to think or what you should think. I'm just telling you what I think and why. I'm just making discussion (I mean, this IS a discussion board, isn't it?). Fair Debate and civil disagreement is what makes ATS ATS.

In fact, we seem to be in agreement (generally) for the most part. We both agree that not any one source should be blindly trusted.

...Which brings us back back to the subject at hand (the subject of this thread). As I said, I don't necessarily trust any one source, either -- Whether that source be a Hoax believer or NASA. I don't blindly believe NASA's evidence nor do I blindly believe the evidence put forth by the moon Hoax crowd. That's why I investigate the evidence on my own, using (as I mentioned in my post above) my knowledge, some scientific understanding, and critical thinking.

I'm not sure why you think you are different than me in that you "don't trust the source". All critical thinkers should not blindly trust any one source, but instead look for confirmation of evidence. Personally, when I try to confirm the Hoax evidence using my limited knowledge and critical thinking, I can't. However, when I try to confirm the evidence at hand that we really did go to the Moon using my limited knowledge and critical thinking, I can make some confirmation of that evidence.

Therefore, weighing the evidence for and against (and not blindly trusting the sources on either side of the issue) I personally think we went to the Moon.

SadistNocturne We're now making federal parks to "protect" our historical assets on the moon, including the prohibiting of low level flyovers. Why?

Now, please, before the deluge of "well, we've already told you, so here, I'll tell you AGAIN MR. HB", just accept the fact that I simply do not trust an feel that I have good reason not to trust what we are being told about the moon landings. This is based off of probable cause and simple pieces of history that don't really seem to add up logically to me.

thats because you are believing what sayonara says without doing any research.. sayonara has an unhealthy obsession with nixon.. anything related to nixon can prove anything he wants because Nixon, howard hughes and CIA.. thats just how he is..

but had you looked at the proposal for the protection of those landing sites and questioned yourself if what sayonara says is true or not, you know like how you like to portray yourself instead of trusting what others say.. you would have found out that you can use rovers to get within 1 metre and 3 metre of the apollo 12,14-16 descent stages and science equipments, but dont take my word go look it up yourself.

SadistNocturne We're now making federal parks to "protect" our historical assets on the moon, including the prohibiting of low level flyovers. Why?

Now, please, before the deluge of "well, we've already told you, so here, I'll tell you AGAIN MR. HB", just accept the fact that I simply do not trust an feel that I have good reason not to trust what we are being told about the moon landings. This is based off of probable cause and simple pieces of history that don't really seem to add up logically to me.

First of all, I think it makes perfect sense to try to preserve at least some of the Apollo landing sites in their current condition for historical reasons. That seems logical to me. I think it would be a shame for a future craft to crash near the site, or have a probes rocket thruster disturb the site, destroying the historical significance of those sites.

Having said that, NASA's proposals for this emphasize protecting the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites -- the first Apollo landing and the final Apollo landing -- moreso than the other sites.

While all the Apollo sites represent significant historical/heritage value in the material culture, the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites carry special significance...It is recommended that the sites for Apollo 11 and 17 be treated as unique by prohibiting visits to any part of the site (and) that all vehicles remain beyond the boundaries of the entire site.

“It is recommended that the entire site at Apollo 11 and 17 be restricted from close inspection by visiting robotic systems. The visiting vehicle mobility exclusion boundary will encompass all artifacts (hardware, footprints, etc) for this site.”

The exclusion zone for Apollo 11′s site will result in a keep-out zone of 75 meters from the lunar module descent stage, where as the zone will extend 200-225 meters from the Apollo 17 site.

(By the way, the exclusion zone for Apollo 11 is smaller than Apollo 17, because the Apollo 11 astronauts did not venture very far from the Lunar Module.)



They feel that Apollo 11 and 17 are of greater historical significance, and will concede to the idea of allowing closer access to the other sites. For Apollos 12, 14,15,and 16, the exclusion zone is VERY close to the sites -- as choos said above, as close as 1 meter (about 3 feet away):

However, for the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 sites, more access should be provided to individual components and artifacts, NASA added, allowing for future robotic missions to get within touching distance of Apollo hardware – as much as they won’t be allowed physical contact.

This additional access is shown as buffer zones, with a three meter buffer for descent stages, one meter buffer distance for the Lunar Rovers, experiments, sampling sites and flags, while no restrictions are recommended on the footprints and rover tracks outside the identified keep-out zones.

Source:
Protecting Apollo sites from future visiting vehicles under NASA evaluation


So they really aren't keeping future space probes (and future Moon visitors) far, far away from all of the Apollo sites -- just the first and last site. The other four sites can be explored by anyone who can get there, although they don't want people climbing on the equipment (just like people aren't allowed to climb on the rocks at Stonehenge or touch the Mona Lisa).

If the information you heard is that NASA wants people to stay far away from ALL Apollo sites, then you should check that source of your information again, because it is wrong.

I'd add that NASA has no legal authority over the landing sites, although they would argue in a court that the equipment itself is US property there would be absolutely nothing they can do if another country or even a private company decided to get up close and have a look.

I would be willing to bet that there are scientists within NASA who would like the equipment brought home, because a study of how equipment has reacted to several decades of lunar exposure would be very useful.

What people like SayonaraJupiter like to do is jump up and down and go "AHAAAAA!!" when they misinterpret NASA statements asking for exclusion zones around their equipment and experiments. They don't read the actual text and look at the details - if they did they would see that most of it says "if you're going there, ask us and think about how you approach it because it might affect any data you want to collect".

There is an exclusion zone around Stonehenge, it doesn't mean it isn't there or that I haven't wandered around inside the stone circle in the past.

Moduli

Geeze, if there was only some way we could use the shape of these arcs, and compare them somehow... If only, the strength of gravity was encoded somehow into their shapes... If only it had already been explained in this thread exactly how to do this....

Ah, well, I guess we'll never know.

Well, you'll never know, apparently.

Because you won't do it.

Even though I explained how.

You people won't do any real science to try to prove your points, is what I'm getting at, in case it's isn't clear.

I've just cited a video which proves my point.

You can drop the pretentious crap about 'real science', it's not fooling anyone.

If you can't address the evidence I've presented, you're sunk.

choos
reply to post by Moduli

 

turbonium1 doesnt understand basic physics.. given that he has enough trouble with basic maths this shouldnt come as a surprise.

must remember according to him you can walk faster on the moon than you can on earth, and by extention you can run faster on the moon than on earth.. even though both instances are governed by gravity.

Same pompous bs act, hoping to avoid the issue.

It won't work, no matter how often you try it.

If you can't address the evidence I've cited, it's worthless..

turbonium1

Same pompous bs act, hoping to avoid the issue.

It won't work, no matter how often you try it.

If you can't address the evidence I've cited, it's worthless..

its basic physics.. gravity pulls your foot towards the ground when you are walking.. if gravity is less on the moon how the hell can you walk faster on the moon than on earth if the pulling force on your foot is less than on earth???

same goes for dust.. put dust in a vacuum on earth and it will fall faster on earth than it will on the moon.. its basic physics.. no one can help you if you are ignorant to the point where your own personal "logic" attempts to defy the laws of gravity..

the so called evidence that you cited is not evidence.. ie. you can walk faster on the moon.. because that is not science that is ignorance.. stop using your "logic" on how things should behave because you have no grasp of physics at all. if you want to use the laws of physics than i suggest you back up your claims with some sort of calculation instead of using your flawed "logic"