Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

UpEndedWorld
The fact that in every shot ever reportedly taken from or on the moon features an extremely
short distance to the horizon alone tells me that we are dealing with a movie set.
That's outside of the myriad of other indications for fraud.

'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing was the first to blow the lie clear out of the water.

wow the surface area of the Moon is 37.9 million square kilometers.The surface area of the Earth is 510 million square km, so the area of the Moon compared to Earth is only 7.4%. So looking at this i wonder why it would seem the horizons closer because perhaps it is. Im shocked sometimes how people will just randomly choose something that they know to be true but then dont even bother to wonder why. You cant compare the earth and the moon its different has no atmosphere and a lot smaller.This means you cant use your observations from the earth and apply it to the moon because guess what the horizon would look extremely close. Especially since the continent of asia has more land mass then the moon! wow no wonder people believe stupid things they dont bother to open a science book.

reply to post by dragonridr



It's not only that, but as I said in my post above, the virtual lack of an atmosphere on the moon means that there would not be the normal atmospheric haze associated with viewing distant objects. Therefore, the distance to mountains that are kilometers away (as seen in many Apollo photographs) can be misjudged because they look "too clear".

Zaphod58
reply to post by UpEndedWorld

 

So the fact that they were on a much smaller planetary body wouldn't play into the horizon being closer? It could only be a movie set?

That is a desperate answer. The moon may be a much smaller planetary body (than earth) but it is
surely still vast. Can you show me ONE photograph, from any moon mission you like, where the horizon
is located at even an intermediate distance?

reply to post by UpEndedWorld


Look back up above this reply and you'll see several.

UpEndedWorld

...Can you show me ONE photograph, from any moon mission you like, where the horizon
is located at even an intermediate distance?

I already showed you one in a post on the previous page:

(Note -- this is actually a mosaic of images)

Here is a link to plenty more Apollo images (although not the highest resolution) for you to find many additional images of mountains and other features whose distance is in kilometers. You'll probably find more of them in the images from Apollos 15 and 17, considering their landing sites had some mountains in the distance, rather than being in the middle of a flat plain:

Apollo Image Atlas --70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog

choos

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???

First of all, I was talking about physical movements of all types. If you think droning on about walking will save you here, better think again.

What about arm movements? You think they'd be faster on Earth, too?

Walking - Joe walks from Point A to Point B in six minutes. Alice walks the same Point A to Point B, in ten minutes. So Joe walked faster than Alice.

The faster steps were those of Alice, but she walked slower than Joe.

Likewise, Usain Bolt is the fastest man on Earth, over 100 m. Each stride Bolt makes may not be the fastest, but have greater distance between them.

Gravity slows you down. It does not make you faster.

Would you walk faster on Jupiter than Earth, since it has over 2x Earth's gravity?

No.

choos

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..

edit on 6-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

With no atmosphere, and far less gravity, dust goes much higher on the moon than on Earth. You can't deal with this huge problem, so you just ignore it altogether.

turbonium1
Gravity slows you down. It does not make you faster.

Right, another basic physics fact missed by the thousands of physicists and engineers involved in the Apollo program, and the millions who have looked at the facts since, and only noticed by you.

If only the Apollo fakers had known that physics works in the exact opposite way than every physicist and engineer thinks it does!

turbonium1

First of all, I was talking about physical movements of all types. If you think droning on about walking will save you here, better think again.

lies.. here is your quote..

An astronaut is in a pressurized spacesuit.
He walks around on Earth.
He walks on the moon.
Why would he walk and move around so much slower on the moon than he would on Earth?
He wouldn't.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

walks around on earth, walks on the moon.. you are the one claiming they should be walking faster on the moon.. if you wanted to say the physical movement should be faster than that is also wrong but not completely..

the limitations of walking faster on the moon is held back by the fact that gravity is unable to pull the astronauts foots to the ground faster on the moon when compared to earth.. therefore the movement of walking must be slowed down.

What about arm movements? You think they'd be faster on Earth, too?

Walking - Joe walks from Point A to Point B in six minutes. Alice walks the same Point A to Point B, in ten minutes. So Joe walked faster than Alice.

The faster steps were those of Alice, but she walked slower than Joe.

Likewise, Usain Bolt is the fastest man on Earth, over 100 m. Each stride Bolt makes may not be the fastest, but have greater distance between them.

i think you are confusing yourself and everyone else now.. you complained that the physical movement should be faster .. not the speed of which someone can get from point a to point b..

Gravity slows you down. It does not make you faster.

Would you walk faster on Jupiter than Earth, since it has over 2x Earth's gravity?

No.

ummmm.. assuming jupiter had a solid surface apart from its core, then yes you would.. gravity doesnt slow you down.. you can walk faster but it will cause you to put extra effort into the motion but it wont slow you down not the motion.

With no atmosphere, and far less gravity, dust goes much higher on the moon than on Earth. You can't deal with this huge problem, so you just ignore it altogether.

yes dust on the moon can, such as during landing and maybe liftoff and maybe large impacts, dust can be ejected from the surface of the moon and into orbit..

but the so called problem has an issue.. you are not taking into account the force used to disturb the dust.. you are comparing a vehicle on earth putting out 100+kW to a vehicle with a total output of under 0.8kW

on the moon the disturbing force will be less than the force on earth.. if the force were the same then it should go higher on the moon, but thats the problem that you dont understand.

Soylent Green Is People

turbonium1
The problem is - if NASA was working towards a genuine moon landing, they would have no reason to get in contact with a film director!! It's utterly absurd

But to contact a film director who just happens to be making a movie about manned space travel? There couldn't be a more obvious red flag.

You think NASA liked his movies so much, they found time to fly off to England, and visited his movie studio?? Several times? And they gave him very expensive film lenses because he was such a nice guy??

I'm sure......

There are several factual and logical errors with your post. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you should stop blindly believing every Moon hoax evidence you hear about and begin investigating that evidence in an attempt to confirm it. Like I said above, I don't blindly believe NASA's information nor should anyone blindly believe information from Moon Hoax proponents. Confirm, confirm, confirm.

First off, there is no evidence that NASA contracted Kubrick. The only source that I know of this comes from the mockumentary The Dark Side of the Moon, which was meant to be a parody of a conspiracy theory -- not a real conspiracy theory. So you can't really count that as evidence.

Secondly, NASA did not give the Zeiss lenses to him. Kubrick bought the Zeiss lenses used in shooting the famous candlelit scenes in the movie Barry Lyndon. And he didn't even buy them from NASA -- he bought them from Zeiss. Granted, the lenses were designed and manufactured by Zeiss for NASA, but NASA did not own all of them. Ten lenses in all were made: Six went to NASA, Zeiss kept one, and three were purchased by Kubrick.

Source: Carl Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses

And thirdly, so what if Kubrick was making a film about manned space travel? He was certainly not the only person doing so during the late 1960s -- neither for cinema nor for TV. On TV, there was Star Trek in the U.S. and Doctor Who (which included space travel) in the UK. In 1970, there was the Gerry Anderson-produced TV show UFO. In cinema, there were 1960s classics such as Robinson Crusoe on Mars, HG Well's First Men in the Moon, and a couple dozen other films about space exploration.

In addition, Kubrick's vision of what the Moon looked like in 2001: A Space Odyssey looked nothing like the Moon we saw from the Apollo program. You would think that if he faked the images of the Moon for Apollo in 1969, then his vision pf what the moon looked like in A Space Odyssey would at least be similar -- and they are not.

edit on 10/6/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

You don't get it. We already had many images of the lunar surface when Kubrick began 2001. And Kubrick was a perfectionist for getting every detail correct.

Do you think he'd know about lunar surface images? Sure.

This is not meant to be Kubrick's 'vision' of the moon. He didn't need to concoct a fictional, fantasy moonscape - because he had real images of it.

Kubrick was a genius at building a story within a story. He loved to place subtle clues throughout his films.

Maybe he wanted a fantasy moonscape as a clue to Apollo being a fantasy. Maybe NASA wanted a goofy moon as a cover for his role.

It's a red flag, anyway.


Again, here's a big problem - NASA should have absolutely no reason to get in contact with a famous film director, period.

NASA is supposedly working on a genuine manned moon landing at the time. What sort of morons would think of visiting Stanley Kubrick at his film studio??

That's such a joke.

choos

walks around on earth, walks on the moon.. you are the one claiming they should be walking faster on the moon.. if you wanted to say the physical movement should be faster than that is also wrong but not completely..

the limitations of walking faster on the moon is held back by the fact that gravity is unable to pull the astronauts foots to the ground faster on the moon when compared to earth.. therefore the movement of walking must be slowed down.


i think you are confusing yourself and everyone else now.. you complained that the physical movement should be faster .. not the speed of which someone can get from point a to point b..

Look at the Apollo clips - every movement is done at the same slow speed.

I asked you about arm movements, didn't I? Why would their arms move around at the very same slow speed?

It's amazing - every movement is being done ar the same slow-motion speed.

The first mission, every move was done in exactly 1/2 speed. They moved up to exactly 2/3 speed for the other missions.

Not a problem with all that!

Why not

turbonium1

choos

walks around on earth, walks on the moon.. you are the one claiming they should be walking faster on the moon.. if you wanted to say the physical movement should be faster than that is also wrong but not completely..

the limitations of walking faster on the moon is held back by the fact that gravity is unable to pull the astronauts foots to the ground faster on the moon when compared to earth.. therefore the movement of walking must be slowed down.


i think you are confusing yourself and everyone else now.. you complained that the physical movement should be faster .. not the speed of which someone can get from point a to point b..

Look at the Apollo clips - every movement is done at the same slow speed.

I asked you about arm movements, didn't I? Why would their arms move around at the very same slow speed?

It's amazing - every movement is being done ar the same slow-motion speed.

The first mission, every move was done in exactly 1/2 speed. They moved up to exactly 2/3 speed for the other missions.

Not a problem with all that!

Why not

You do realize they used slow scan video for apollo 11 recordings, normal televisions frame rate is 30 frames per second but apollo 11 used a frame rate of 10 frames per second.Meaning the human eye notices there is a slow down because at that slow of a rate we detect the pauses in the video. One more thing the slow motion was more then half you would have to speed up the video by 2/3rds ,the problem is there is nothing that can be used to for the missing frames so even at 30 frames per second our eyes would still notice the pauses. Proof is simple when the slow scans came in they rerecorded it at 30 frames per second but yet here we are having this discussion so speeding up the video accomplished nothing. Today we could use CGI to fill in the missing frames but back then that technology wasnt available.

So now i dont expect you to believe me so go find out for yourself thats the only way people get rid of there beliefs is to realize themselves. There is websites out there that use this as proff the only thing it proves is the Apollo broadcast was a very low low bandwidth signal in fact they didnt even attempt color knowing that they only had to worry about contrast made the signal even smaller.

turbonium1

Look at the Apollo clips - every movement is done at the same slow speed.

I asked you about arm movements, didn't I? Why would their arms move around at the very same slow speed?

It's amazing - every movement is being done ar the same slow-motion speed.

balance.. if you swing your arms fast it carries momentum, that momentum can put you off balance.. and given the gravity is lowered the momentum will still be relatively greater given that the velocity is squared and gravity does not affect mass.

however you really need to show me, because i havent seen any abnormally slow arm movements.

The first mission, every move was done in exactly 1/2 speed. They moved up to exactly 2/3 speed for the other missions.

Not a problem with all that!

Why not

exactly half speed?? exactly 2/3 speed?? you need to prove this. saying so proves nothing.

choos

turbonium1

Look at the Apollo clips - every movement is done at the same slow speed.

I asked you about arm movements, didn't I? Why would their arms move around at the very same slow speed?

It's amazing - every movement is being done ar the same slow-motion speed.

balance.. if you swing your arms fast it carries momentum, that momentum can put you off balance.. and given the gravity is lowered the momentum will still be relatively greater given that the velocity is squared and gravity does not affect mass.

however you really need to show me, because i havent seen any abnormally slow arm movements.

The first mission, every move was done in exactly 1/2 speed. They moved up to exactly 2/3 speed for the other missions.

Not a problem with all that!

Why not

exactly half speed?? exactly 2/3 speed?? you need to prove this. saying so proves nothing.

He simply doesnt understand the effects scan rates have on video. The motions arent slower but they are jerky making it seem slower when its simply the video has to stay on the screen longer. Also leads to some weird aspects in video like if the astronaut moves to fast he becomes transparent. Here watch the video at 1 min 20 sec youll actually see the background as the astronaut moves this is because converting to 30 frames a second we can see the background superimposed on the astronaut if he moves to quickly.

dragonridr

You do realize they used slow scan video for apollo 11 recordings, normal televisions frame rate is 30 frames per second but apollo 11 used a frame rate of 10 frames per second.Meaning the human eye notices there is a slow down because at that slow of a rate we detect the pauses in the video. One more thing the slow motion was more then half you would have to speed up the video by 2/3rds ,the problem is there is nothing that can be used to for the missing frames so even at 30 frames per second our eyes would still notice the pauses. Proof is simple when the slow scans came in they rerecorded it at 30 frames per second but yet here we are having this discussion so speeding up the video accomplished nothing. Today we could use CGI to fill in the missing frames but back then that technology wasnt available.

So now i dont expect you to believe me so go find out for yourself thats the only way people get rid of there beliefs is to realize themselves. There is websites out there that use this as proff the only thing it proves is the Apollo broadcast was a very low low bandwidth signal in fact they didnt even attempt color knowing that they only had to worry about contrast made the signal even smaller.

edit on 10/12/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

You do realize this occurred in 1969, right?

NASA is working toward the first-ever manned moon landing. It will unfold before our eyes, watching it on TV sets around the world. A caption 'proves' it is "LIVE FROM THE MOON".

No doubt, such a profound, historical, milestone event should be filmed in black & white!! A color camera is used for interior footage!!

After that, show the b&w footage on a large screen. The media can film it off the screen, and then show it to the world. Nobody will care why it's grainy b&w crap footage - we landed on the moon!

So "they didnt even attempt color" in filming (one of) mankind's greatest ever achievements because it would have taken more bandwidth?

It didn't even dawn on them to film it in color, like they'd filmed in color along the way!! Good one!

If you think the Apollo 11 footage looks slower because it was filmed at 10 frames/second, why didn't you mention that all the other missions were also slow?

Do you want to use the 'being careful' excuse for those missions?

turbonium1

You do realize this occurred in 1969, right?

kingly state the technology levels within the film industry prior to 1969 in order for them to have faked the apollo missions..
and how they were able to film and edit weather patterns for each individual missions several months or years in advanced..

choos

balance.. if you swing your arms fast it carries momentum, that momentum can put you off balance.. and given the gravity is lowered the momentum will still be relatively greater given that the velocity is squared and gravity does not affect mass.

however you really need to show me, because i havent seen any abnormally slow arm movements.

exactly half speed?? exactly 2/3 speed?? you need to prove this. saying so proves nothing.

Apollo 11 at (supposedly) normal speed..

www.youtube.com...

Same footage at 2x speed..

www.youtube.com...

Another Apollo 11 clip, with both 'normal' speed and 2x speed..

www.youtube.com...


Arm movements are seen in these clips, at the same 1/2 speed as all their movements are done. It's only your excuse for it that differs..

You say walking is slower due to the effects of less gravity.

You say arm movements are slower because they deliberately move their arms slow, in order to keep their balance.

What's most remarkable is that their 'deliberately' slower movements were performed at the very same speed as the movements which were NOT deliberately done slower!!

Every second of Apollo 11 footage taken on the (supposed) lunar surface, with every movement done at the same slow speed, that just happens to be at exactly 1/2 of normal speed, over a period of several minutes time.

Either they are highly advanced robots, or the footage was slowed down to 1/2 normal speed.

It is simply impossible for humans, period.









Apollo 16 'jump' at normal speed compared to 'Mythbusters' jump slowed down to 67% (or 2/3) speed. About 6:30 into the clip..

www.youtube.com...

These two 'jumps' are eerily similar.

turbonium1

dragonridr

You do realize they used slow scan video for apollo 11 recordings, normal televisions frame rate is 30 frames per second but apollo 11 used a frame rate of 10 frames per second.Meaning the human eye notices there is a slow down because at that slow of a rate we detect the pauses in the video. One more thing the slow motion was more then half you would have to speed up the video by 2/3rds ,the problem is there is nothing that can be used to for the missing frames so even at 30 frames per second our eyes would still notice the pauses. Proof is simple when the slow scans came in they rerecorded it at 30 frames per second but yet here we are having this discussion so speeding up the video accomplished nothing. Today we could use CGI to fill in the missing frames but back then that technology wasnt available.

So now i dont expect you to believe me so go find out for yourself thats the only way people get rid of there beliefs is to realize themselves. There is websites out there that use this as proff the only thing it proves is the Apollo broadcast was a very low low bandwidth signal in fact they didnt even attempt color knowing that they only had to worry about contrast made the signal even smaller.

edit on 10/12/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

You do realize this occurred in 1969, right?

NASA is working toward the first-ever manned moon landing. It will unfold before our eyes, watching it on TV sets around the world. A caption 'proves' it is "LIVE FROM THE MOON".

No doubt, such a profound, historical, milestone event should be filmed in black & white!! A color camera is used for interior footage!!

After that, show the b&w footage on a large screen. The media can film it off the screen, and then show it to the world. Nobody will care why it's grainy b&w crap footage - we landed on the moon!

So "they didnt even attempt color" in filming (one of) mankind's greatest ever achievements because it would have taken more bandwidth?

It didn't even dawn on them to film it in color, like they'd filmed in color along the way!! Good one!

If you think the Apollo 11 footage looks slower because it was filmed at 10 frames/second, why didn't you mention that all the other missions were also slow?

Do you want to use the 'being careful' excuse for those missions?

In order to have higher bandwith would have had to spend 2 hours setting up a high gain antenna like they did on other missions and would have missed the historic event. They didnt have video compression like we do now so they hand limited band width. There was however a camera with film mounted and that was color but they didnt get the film until they returned. This obviously wasnt practical for a live event and they had to give the media something.If they faked it they could have easily lied and played it like they actually had 2 antenna or there was a high gain antenna filmed it and no one would have been the wiser. But they didnt because they had limitations and had to find a work around proving it was real. As for the other missions as i said high gain antennas were deployed and the video format was changed because of it. Look at say apollo 15 and please show me this slow down you speak of because its in your head. The footage all those u tube videos use is of apollo 11. Or they show video of astronauts skipping on the moon in lower gravity to make it look normal to us they have to speed up the video. Because on the moon it takes longer for there feet to come in contact with the surface making it seem to be slow. However arm movements are not effected you speed up the video and there arms move incredibly fast.

Simulation....
This is what is used every day in the aviation industry.
It is used to certify pilots at different airports around the world without ever having to go there.

This is all that it was ,a simulator for the landing, no evil or dubious plan was in place. Not a hoax.... Just Training.

turbonium1

Apollo 11 at (supposedly) normal speed..

Same footage at 2x speed..

Another Apollo 11 clip, with both 'normal' speed and 2x speed..

so playing it at 2x times speed proves that the original was done at half speed now?? dont you think they are moving pretty fast at your listed 2x speed?

Arm movements are seen in these clips, at the same 1/2 speed as all their movements are done. It's only your excuse for it that differs..

You say walking is slower due to the effects of less gravity.

You say arm movements are slower because they deliberately move their arms slow, in order to keep their balance.

What's most remarkable is that their 'deliberately' slower movements were performed at the very same speed as the movements which were NOT deliberately done slower!!

Every second of Apollo 11 footage taken on the (supposed) lunar surface, with every movement done at the same slow speed, that just happens to be at exactly 1/2 of normal speed, over a period of several minutes time.

Either they are highly advanced robots, or the footage was slowed down to 1/2 normal speed.

It is simply impossible for humans, period.

they hardly moved their arms and you can tell so much from barely any arm movement?? the whole fact that you posted the 2x video shows without a doubt that it was not done at half speed.

Apollo 16 'jump' at normal speed compared to 'Mythbusters' jump slowed down to 67% (or 2/3) speed. About 6:30 into the clip..

www.youtube.com...

These two 'jumps' are eerily similar.

so glad you brought this video up.. the following video proves that jarrahs video of john youngs jumping salute was done on the moon and yes it used jarrahs own footage.


ive posted this several times already and obviously you have ignored it since you posted jarrahs video. but thanks for proving the john youngs jumping salute was done in on the moon.

choos

kingly state the technology levels within the film industry prior to 1969 in order for them to have faked the apollo missions..
and how they were able to film and edit weather patterns for each individual missions several months or years in advanced..

edit on 13-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968, that proves we had the technology to fake it, beyond a doubt.

As for weather patterns matching up, here's a hint -

Who was launching weather satellites in the 1960's?