Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by dragonridr


Not here to convince you of anything. Thanks for the snarky response. Cheers!

fenson76
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Not here to convince you of anything. Thanks for the snarky response. Cheers!

I dont believe i asked you to i merely pointed out you have no concept of the technology available in the 60s or you would find the idea of a simulator funny. Have you actually seen the simulator they built a mock up of the moon and hung a camera above it and projected that on a screen in the lander. only work to about a thousand feet above the surface and the pilots had to pretend from there because the picture got to blurry. Even the astronauts thought the simulator was a joke but at least it got them use to using the controls. This was an age before computer graphics most computers still used punch cards. And you believe they could make a simulator thats able to fool people? See the problem when you buy into a hoax is your willing to dismiss evidence contrary to your belief and its easy you simply say well they faked that to no rational thought needed.

choos

its not hard to tell whether or not its cloudy or clearskies in your local area.. this goes for the entire world.. so you think that they decided to just make up the weather for apollo and hope for the best?? like say a tropical cyclone??

It doesn't matter either way, because NASA is in control of the whole thing.

So if NASA's satellite images become 'Apollo' images, nobody would know the difference.

What's the problem?

reply to post by turbonium1


Are you saying that NASA controlled your local weather?

turbonium1

It doesn't matter either way, because NASA is in control of the whole thing.

So if NASA's satellite images become 'Apollo' images, nobody would know the difference.

What's the problem?

problem?? how do you hide natural weather?? like say a hurricane/tropical cyclone/typhoon?

reply to post by choos


Well i see 4 possible ways this could be done.

A: Time travel
B: Hire a really good psychic (not the ones in circuses)
C: Build weather control device
D: Go to the moon

Hmmm wonder which one is most likely tough choice huh.

choos
look at the speed at which they move from point a to point b in your 2x video and tell me that looks real.. you are kidding right?

I see it as genuine at 2x, and you do not. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter, and move on?...

choos

not a point in my favour?? so you think its in your favour?? were jarrah is claiming they used 2/3 speed and ropes to produce the effect and yet the effect doesnt even line up with john youngs jump?? its supposed to be the same, the height jumped is the same but why does john young stay "airborne" longer than the mythbusters??

Why does he stay "airborne" longer?

I went over this point already, didn't I?

I asked you a question -

If they suspended a person (by using wires) in mid-air a bit longer than the Mythbusters guy was suspended, what is the result?

Well, this person would land a bit after John Young did.

Do you understand that wires can be rigged up to suspend a person in mid-air for virtually any length of time, whether it's just for a fraction of a second, or it's for a few seconds, or several hours?

So they could have suspended the Mythbusters guy in mid-air for any length of time, of course.

He could have been suspended in mid-air longer than Young was, which means he would land AFTER Young did.

So what?

turbonium1

I see it as genuine at 2x, and you do not. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter, and move on?...

we can, but i dont think you are being honest with yourself.. look at the first 5 seconds of your video and tell thats normal..

youtu.be...

Why does he stay "airborne" longer?

I went over this point already, didn't I?

I asked you a question -

If they suspended a person (by using wires) in mid-air a bit longer than the Mythbusters guy was suspended, what is the result?

Well, this person would land a bit after John Young did.

Do you understand that wires can be rigged up to suspend a person in mid-air for virtually any length of time, whether it's just for a fraction of a second, or it's for a few seconds, or several hours?

So they could have suspended the Mythbusters guy in mid-air for any length of time, of course.

He could have been suspended in mid-air longer than Young was, which means he would land AFTER Young did.

So what?

you havent watched the mythbusters segment have you?? they configured the ropes to be equal to the weight that the astronauts would experience on the moon. by suspending them longer then the weight would be less. this would give erroneous footage. ie. he would jump higher.

but the thing is gravity will pull everything down at the same speed regardless of weight, whether it be a feather or a brick they will fall at the exact same speed in a vacuum.

so this was meant to be a replication of how they faked the moon landing.. they applied the same weight to the astronaut and slowed the footage down to what jarrah wants.. and since all objects will fall at exactly the same speed they should have been identical.. the video proves that the mythbusters fell faster than john young even though the replicated the weight and the slowed footage, so it should have been identical..

now all thats needed is to edit out the ropes.. and edit in dynamic visor reflections..........

reply to post by onebigmonkey

You seem to be the one obsessed with personalities, how about you ditch that dead-end approach and consider the evidence I have presented above? You seem to have a blind spot about it.

You'll get over my obsessions with personalities, won't you? In any good investigation there is always the need to build a record of the character of suspect. The FBI does exactly the same thing when they profile somebody.

When I mentioned the events of the $70,000 dollar camera sizzling, and the splashdown incident with the camera mount, I'm building a profile about Alan Bean.

36 seconds after launch, when the lightning struck the Saturn V rocket, Pete Conrad and Dick Gordon didn't know what to do. If you look at the transcripts Pete cannot even get clear communications with the ground. Who pushed the button? Alan Bean did.

"Flight, try SCE to 'Aux'", most of his mission control colleagues had no idea what he was talking about. Both the flight director and the CapCom asked him to repeat the recommendation. Pete Conrad's response to the order was, "What the hell is that?" Fortunately Alan Bean was familiar with the location of the SCE switch inside the capsule, and flipped it to auxiliary. Source WIKIPEDIA

Dick Gordon was CMP he should have known what it means "Flight, try SCE to 'Aux'" but he didn't. Both Pete and Dick flaked out.

Who pushed the button? Alan Bean did.
Who burned out the color TV? Alan Bean did.
Who got smashed in the face with a camera mount because he failed to follow procedures? Alan Bean did.

The man had a serious head injury on splash down November 20, 1969! Maybe he was deep underground in the Nevada desert and doesn't want to remember because you won't ask him any tough questions!.

Alan Bean has for 40 years memorized all the answers to standard questions he gets at every hand shaking event. Nobody would ever dare to ask him a challenging question, in public, on camera. We have seen what happens when Alan Bean is asked challenging questions about Apollo.

With all due respect, OBMonkey, my investigation has nothing to do with your opinion of my investigation. You claimed that I have a blind spot about it. I simply don't care what you think of my investigation. The questions and answers that we pose in this thread are important.

By the way, posting a photo of yourself with Alan Bean is considered propaganda of the 'testimonial' kind.

turbonium1

choos
look at the speed at which they move from point a to point b in your 2x video and tell me that looks real.. you are kidding right?

I see it as genuine at 2x, and you do not. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter, and move on?...

choos

not a point in my favour?? so you think its in your favour?? were jarrah is claiming they used 2/3 speed and ropes to produce the effect and yet the effect doesnt even line up with john youngs jump?? its supposed to be the same, the height jumped is the same but why does john young stay "airborne" longer than the mythbusters??

Why does he stay "airborne" longer?

I went over this point already, didn't I?

I asked you a question -

If they suspended a person (by using wires) in mid-air a bit longer than the Mythbusters guy was suspended, what is the result?

Well, this person would land a bit after John Young did.

Do you understand that wires can be rigged up to suspend a person in mid-air for virtually any length of time, whether it's just for a fraction of a second, or it's for a few seconds, or several hours?

So they could have suspended the Mythbusters guy in mid-air for any length of time, of course.

He could have been suspended in mid-air longer than Young was, which means he would land AFTER Young did.

So what?

What hes not getting across to you is this to fake moon gravity They have to reduce the amount of weight of our astronaut. The moons gravity is 5/6ths less then earth or percentage wise 83.3 percent less. To keep math simple our atronaut weighs exactly 200 lbs on the moon hed weigh in at 33.4 lbs. Meaning i have to make a pulley system that takes away 166.6lbs to get him to jump as high.Great we just made sure our earth bound astronaut can jump as high as he could on the moon. Now comes the problem Earths gravity is still higher and an object on earth is going to fall faster then an object on the moon so even though our astronauts now weigh the same the gravity effecting them is different pulling our earth bound astronaut down slightly faster. The only way to correct for this is again take more weight off the astronaut on earth.This would allow him to jump higher and thus take longer to hit the surface. But then you would see he jumped alot higher into the air.

This is why you cant use pullies and ropes to simulate gravity and have it work when examined on film because we have college students that do exactly that in fact i had to in a physics class. We had to figure out the height and force used in jump simple way to get one to understand the math and try to make it interesting.

This is a disclosure thread and there is a new race to the moon.

With the Apollo moon rocks we have seen that during the audits there was "extreme disagreements."


And with the seismographic readings from the the moon there was "It suggests you can see impacts on the moon from very, very far away. This has been a subject of considerable controversy." Strangway said.


Apollo Defenders often claim, using glittering generalities that there is a universal hegemony amongst the scientific community but when looking at the situation closely it does seem that there are problematic issues with the provenance of moon rocks and the interpretations of seismographic data.

I'm wondering how the Apollo Defenders are going to squirm away from "extreme disagreements" and "considerable controversy". I wait for good answers.

You know icould never figure out why it bugs me when people try to trash the achievements of landing a man on the moon until i watched this guy. Because hes right this was the greatest accomplishment of mankind nothing else compares in human history.Any way watch his video he has a unique way of presenting the facts.

reply to post by dragonridr


The video you posted shows a guy using the 400,000 fallacy but he boldly increases it to "half a million."

Joe Rogan would destroy that guy far worse than he destroyed Phil Plait. The 400,000 is a fallacy because only 12 men can claim to have walked on the moon. You are using propaganda of the 'bandwagon'.

reply to post by dragonridr


Also, the guy in your video glorifies in the violence of Buzz Aldrin punching Bart Sibrel. I mean he really glorifies in the violence!

Dragon, you can't argue so you have put up some crap youtube video that advocates violence against those who question the official narratives.

You defeated yourself, Dragon. Just like the quote from Richard Nixon goes:

“Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”

SayonaraJupiter

By the way, posting a photo of yourself with Alan Bean is considered propaganda of the 'testimonial' kind.

edit on 10/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix my damn tags

No, My posting a photo of myself with Alan Bean is a direct response to your saying "pics, or it didn't happen". Trying to infer that there was another motive behind it is deliberately manipulating a sequence of events to make your story look better.

The rest of your post falls under name calling.

Your interpretation of "Flight, try SCE to 'Aux'" is a little out, and you mix in factual reporting with your own interpretation of what went on. Gordon, the man who you say should know what FCE to Aux means, did know that, because no sooner has Pete Conrad queried what the instruction was Gordon explains it. There was also confusion over the radio as to whether ground had said 'F' or 'S' or even 'N'. Far from Conrad 'flaking out' he was the one calling out what had happened. No-one 'flaked out', you had a crew of 3 all in seats looking (and able to reach) different instruments and dials, so different ones had different responsibilities during launch. 'Flaking out' is your spin on it, it's your propaganda.

Read the transcripts, watch the launch video and listen to the audio. Ask yourself how they knew it was going to get hit by lightning (twice) and then had to come up with a new script really really quickly.

The remainder of your contribution proves nothing. Bean hit by a camera dislodged by the impact of splashdown? So what? It proves he was in the capsule that landed in the Pacific, an event filmed and recorded in the Pacific, not the desert. So he burned out the TV camera on the moon - so what? Unfortunate but could have happened to anyone. It happened to him on the surface of the moon.

Carry on with your glittering generalities and name calling, it will be patently obvious by now that the one thing you are studiously avoiding is responding to hard evidence that proves you wrong.

If you have questions you want to ask Alan Bean, or any astronaut, then I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and ask them.

Apollo Defenders often claim, using glittering generalities that there is a universal hegemony amongst the scientific community but when looking at the situation closely it does seem that there are problematic issues with the provenance of moon rocks and the interpretations of seismographic data.

I'm wondering how the Apollo Defenders are going to squirm away from "extreme disagreements" and "considerable controversy". I wait for good answers.

Could you please identify when this glittering generality has been employed by people who disagree with you? The point of the scientific aspect of Apollo was to try and resolve the disagreements about the origins and structure of the moon.

Again you are disingenuously taking isolated statements and trying to crowbar them into your discredited argument. The 'extreme disagreement is not in the amount of rock brought back, or that the rock is lunar in origin, it is a disagreement with the auditors over what has happened to some of the material loaned otu to organisations outside NASA.

The 'considerable controversy' is not about whether there are seismometers on the moon, or whether those instruments can return a signal to Earth, it is whether the lunar structure is of a type that would allow the transmission of impact reverberations over some distance.

turbonium1

It doesn't matter either way, because NASA is in control of the whole thing.

So if NASA's satellite images become 'Apollo' images, nobody would know the difference.

What's the problem?

So when I get in touch with Australia's Meteorological Office and they send me their own historic copies of NIMBUS images that they downloaded independently of NASA (who launched, but did not manage, the weather satellites) and that show cloud patterns you can see in Apollo images, how does that work?

When you have images of clouds shown live on TV and in newspapers before it could be possible to have all the satellite images combined into a whole image of Earth, how does that work?

Saying NASA must have done it and demonstrating how it must have been done are two different things, and the latter never seems to be forthcoming.

onebigmonkey

So what are you claiming here? NASA faked the weather? Here's the thing - NASA may have launched the satellites but they didn't manage them, that was done by the Environmental Science and Services Administration, so I guess your only argument here is that Americans faked the weather.

Unfortunately for that rather feeble argument the satellite data could be received worldwide by any country that had the equipment, and even by amateurs who had the equipment eg see here.

So, instead of just trying a nudge nudge wink wink approach, how about actually looking at that evidence and producing a considered response. Here is just one example of the dozens I have looked at from every Apollo mission.

On July 16 1969 Apollo 11 made a TV broadcast after TLI. During that TV broadcast they showed a view of Earth. That view of Earth matches exactly what should have been visible in terms of the land mass, position of the terminator and so on.

Several newspapers took photographs of that broadcast, and one of them put that photograph on the front page on July 17th, so we know for a fact that it had to be from before that date. Here's that newspaper front page.

Now let's have a look at that picture compared with a screenshot from the video, just so we can prove it's the same thing:

During the build up to the launch, Hurricane Bernice was developing in the Eastern Pacific. Here are some photographs of it developing:

It should be evident from that images above that the hurricane had a very distinct form on July the 16th, so it should be obvious don't you think?

What the crew also did was take photographs of the same view, and below you can see a section of one of those stills compared with the July 16th satellite photograph of Hurricane Bernice and the video still:

Every other weather pattern can also be made out as on the two satellite images compared with a still iamge of the same view from my site:

I've even added some pretty coloured arrows to help you out

So, we have a TV broadcast on July 16th showing a hurricane in a form only visible on that day, and which can also be seen in the image pictured on the front of the next day's newspaper. The satellite image would not have been available at the time of the TV transmission, because it would have taken several orbits to complete. I'd venture to suggest that it would not have been compiled in time for it to be on the front page of the Coshocton Tribune. Oh, and it was only available in black & white - not colour.

So if you have any kind of rational explanation other than "I don't trust NASA", then I'd love to hear it. None of the above is NASA research - it's mine, and the only thing that's from a NASA site is the original video and photograph.

edit on 13-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: and another thing...

Your images of Hurricane Bernice match up so perfectly, and that's the problem.

Look at time-lapse satellite images - the weather patterns continually change - hour-by-hour, each and every single day.

But weather patterns never changed that one miraculous day, back in 1969!

I suppose you'll tell me it was taken at the very same time, yet another of Apollo's amazing coincidences.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The video you posted shows a guy using the 400,000 fallacy but he boldly increases it to "half a million."

Joe Rogan would destroy that guy far worse than he destroyed Phil Plait. The 400,000 is a fallacy because only 12 men can claim to have walked on the moon. You are using propaganda of the 'bandwagon'.

You really have no concept of reality first you say you should abhor violence then you threaten a former astronaut saying a UFC fighter could beat him.What makes it priceless is plait went in there with the intention of harassing and bulling him i dont know if you were aware of this but he was stalking him, He showed up at all his engagements requesting things and generally being disrespectful. Do you know why he didnt go to jail for hitting him because Plait knew he would have stalking charges if he pursued it.And I would hope Joe Rogan could beat up an 80 yr old man being a UFC fighter so what was your point exactly? As far as the fallacy it will say 400000 were involved in making parts training building working out the math etc and not one of them said hey wait this wont work. You dont find it significant ? However that wasnt his main point that was just something he mentioned before he made his point on the Russians. Conveniently you ignored the point he was making on how the Russians would have known it was faked and would have told the entire planet. They tracked the Apollo spacecraft In fact not only tracked it tried to beat it to the moon in there rush they crashed there spacecraft into the moon, Only hours before Apollo 11 landed.