Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

NASA was down for 16 days. Basically, a black out operation. Was Charles Bolden setting the stage for a Disclosure during those days? Will NASA turn science fiction (Nixon's Apollo moon landings) into science fact? Will we see there be further increase in NEO/Asteroid threats? Will China soft land on the moon this year?
Will the "preserve and protect" language be enough to protect Nixon's Apollo from Disclosure?

SayonaraJupiter
NASA was down for 16 days. Basically, a black out operation. Was Charles Bolden setting the stage for a Disclosure during those days? Will NASA turn science fiction (Nixon's Apollo moon landings) into science fact? Will we see there be further increase in NEO/Asteroid threats? Will China soft land on the moon this year?
Will the "preserve and protect" language be enough to protect Nixon's Apollo from Disclosure?

Dont you get tired of losing debate then we go into rinse and repeat mode like it never happened? As i said no innuendos prove we didnt go to the moon or is that a problem for you? Oh and by the way Von Braun never said that his secretary did

turbonium1
The jump was done by a Mythbusters guy, not by Jarrah White!!!

Jarrah White showed their jump in his video, slowed down to 67% speed.

Do you claim wires can lift a person to match Young's lift, but cannot hold a person to match with Young, and cannot descend a person to match with Young?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then you better start proving it.

But you have nothing, right?

are you able to explain why then that the mythbusters attempt falls at a faster rate than john young??

SayonaraJupiter
META
Apollo Defenders, god bless 'em, have used a wide variety of propaganda to defend Apollo. Kennedy's moon landing dream, became Johnson's moon landing boondoggle, which became Nixon's Apollo. It is rightly called Nixon's Apollo because he was the president at the time each "moon" landing occurred.

You call it propaganda, I call it scientific facts and detailed analysis. Please refer to the posts I made over the past few days and refute them with similar analysis and avoiding any kind of vague statements inferring dark motives.

Apollo Defenders know there are a lot of skeletons in NASA's closet and Apollo was total propaganda.

Bit of a propaganda technique of your own there. You are implying that people opposing your argument know that they are wrong and are, in effect, lying. You need to take on board the possibility that a) they believe it and b) they are correct.

The only way to defend a propaganda is with more propaganda. And this thread is a disclosure of the methods used by NASA propagandists. To wit:

Actually it's a thread about disclosure of a so-called hoax, but continue...

1. Glittering generalities. e.g., "Millions of scientists this or that... they must all be lying about it.",

The only way to counter such propaganda is to prove it is not true. Please find anyone in the scientific community who disputes the origin of lunar samples or the data from lunar scientific equipment.

2. Transfer. "But the Russians would have exposed everything!".

They would. So would the Chinese, or the French for that matter, or any number of governments, political alliances, rebels with or without causes. No-one has. Why? Because there is nothing to expose.

3. Name-calling. Calling names, "Hoax believer/s", in an open forum.

You think that's name calling? What other description would you prefer? I have been called much much worse on a variety of websites. Your own post above intimates that I am a liar by inferring I (amongst others) know that Apollo is not true. The best defence against insults is the truth. Prove anything said in opposition to your view is wrong and any alleged insults won't really matter will they?

4. Card stacking. "So you are saying the moon is made of cheese?"

Don't recall that being said, but I can think of plenty of tangential arguments being employed by hoax believers as some sort of proof that they are right. Von Braun's nationality, for example, or Nixon's criminal activity in office.

5. Testimonial. "I shook the man's hand. He looked me square in the eye. I believe NASA would not lie."

NASA is an organisation. I can't shake its hand. I don't believe that it would not lie, but I have not been shown any example of it. I have, however, met two astronauts and found their accounts to be compelling and convincing. I have read many scientific and technical reports that confirm their accounts, and done my own research that does the same.

6. Plain folks. "The Apollo astronauts are patriotic, courageous men who would never lie about it."

I actually believe they are patriotic and courageous and are not liars. Just because something falls into a category that you believe is propaganda, this does not mean that it is not true.

7. Band wagon. "The 400,000 fallacy", they'd all have to be lying about it. (And one of my favorites, "We all saw it on TV!")

The 400000 is not a fallacy, but I would agree that not everyone of those people who contributed to the missions would be 'in the know'.

However, if we assume that the whole thing was filmed in a TV studio, then we need to at the very least include the people who took the astronauts there, the people who filled it with lunar soil, the lighting technicians, the camera crews, the security guys, the people operating the wiring, the editors, the script writers, the directors, and so on and so on and so on. The logistical exercise of one simple fake photograph involves more people that would be acceptable in a so-called secret mission. Where are the bodies? Where are the people selling their story for money?

"I saw it on TV"? Yes. I did. And so did millions of others. Hundreds of thousands of people even turned up to watch the Saturn V's launch.

What we saw on TV was evidence, broadcast live, of lunar gravity and the vacuum of space. We saw lunar dust arcing form rover wheels in a way that could not be replicated in a 1G atmosphere. We saw astronauts move in 1/6G. We saw pictures of Earth broadcast back to us that weather satellites hadn't yet collected, showing exactly what should be showing in terms of the position of land masses and the terminator and how Earth should look from a lunar perspective, not from an Earth orbit one, pictures like this one from Apollo 8's broadcast on the 23rd:



That appeared on the following day's newspapers:



Or this shot from the TV broadcast in Apollo 17.



Saying it is propaganda and expecting people to accept it uncritically is just propaganda. You don;t just need to drape it in the emperor's new clothes and expect people to go along with it, you need to demonstrate that the propaganda is false.

SayonaraJupiter
META
Apollo Defenders, god bless 'em, have used a wide variety of propaganda to defend Apollo. Kennedy's moon landing dream, became Johnson's moon landing boondoggle, which became Nixon's Apollo. It is rightly called Nixon's Apollo because he was the president at the time each "moon" landing occurred.

Apollo Defenders know there are a lot of skeletons in NASA's closet and Apollo was total propaganda. The only way to defend a propaganda is with more propaganda. And this thread is a disclosure of the methods used by NASA propagandists. To wit:

1. Glittering generalities. e.g., "Millions of scientists this or that... they must all be lying about it.",
2. Transfer. "But the Russians would have exposed everything!".
3. Name-calling. Calling names, "Hoax believer/s", in an open forum.
4. Card stacking. "So you are saying the moon is made of cheese?"
5. Testimonial. "I shook the man's hand. He looked me square in the eye. I believe NASA would not lie."
6. Plain folks. "The Apollo astronauts are patriotic, courageous men who would never lie about it."
7. Band wagon. "The 400,000 fallacy", they'd all have to be lying about it. (And one of my favorites, "We all saw it on TV!")

edit on 10/20/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

I got ONE THING to say:
PROVE it was a HOAX.
Show me irrefutable, undeniable 100% PROOF the landings were a HOAX.
Show me ONE THING that proves the whole thing was a fraud. Show me one interview, one STATEMENT by a former NASA or govt worker or ASTRONAUT that says everything was a hoax and I will believe 100% it was a hoax.
Dont show me your theory, or anyone else's theories. Dont tell me to search for the truth, its on google or any crap like that. Show me 100% PROOF the landings were a hoax.

Till then, I wont hold my breath, as I'll pass out while waiting.
Till then, YOUR statement is a HOAX and 100% FALSE

PROVE IT OR SHUT UP.

OK, try and get your head around this one.

This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362:



It shows a picture of Earth taken at about 03:00 GMT on November 15th 1969. We can work out the time from the position of the terminator, and the date from the weather satellite image that (naturally) shows Earth's weather patterns exactly matching up with what you would have seen from space on that date, and that date alone.

To prove the time aspect of it, here's what should be visible from the moon at the same time:



Hmm - notice anything?

I'll spell it out: the Earth's daylight portion has a convex terminator, but on the Apollo image it is concave - much less of the Earth's surface is in daylight in this view. What's going on?

The cause of this difference is because the lit portion of the Earth as seen from space depends on where you are in space. Apollo 12's trajectory means it is not aiming at where the moon was when it took off, it is aiming at where the moon will be a few days later, and from that perspective the Earth looks completely different.

The diagram below shows two positions of the moon relative to Earth derived from Stellarium for Apollo 12. One is where the moon was on the 15th, the other at LOI on the 18th - in other words where it is heading. The Earth (not to scale but in the correct position) shows the way daylight is appearing from the moon on the 15th.



You can see in the bottom left corner the view of the Earth is it will appear by the time Apollo 12 gets there on the 18th.

Are we getting this?

The Apollo photograph is not only showing the correct landmasses that should be visible when the photograph was taken, and the correct weather patterns for the day in question, it is also showing the correct view of the Earth's terminator from a position in cislunar space en route to where the moon will be 3 days later - not a view taken from any weather satellite, or anything else in Earth orbit.

All suggestions as to how this was done other than by actually being en route to the moon gratefully received.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

However, if we assume that the whole thing was filmed in a TV studio.

Which TV studio would that be? KLAS-TV out of Las Vegas?

Hank Greenspun, the original owner, sold KLAS station to aviation magnate Howard Hughes in 1968, reportedly because the tycoon was dismayed that the station never played his favorite late night movies. From the Wiki.

SayonaraJupiter

Which TV studio would that be? KLAS-TV out of Las Vegas?

thats great.. just pick the parts you want and ignore the rest.. let me try it..

SayonaraJupiter
Las Vegas?

the city in USA??

Here's another example of how 'It was on TV so it must be true' does actually work.

Just over 5 hours into Apollo 10's mission, and after the extraction of the LM from the SIV-B, the crew finally get to see Earth at a distance of 26000 miles as they make a broadcast home.

Here's a photo of mission control during that broadcast:



and here's a photograph from that broadcast on the front page of a newspaper the next day.


Note the utter failure of Apollo 10 to displace Vietnam stories from the front page.

This is the colour version of the same view taken by the 16 mm DAC camera compared with satellite images from the same day and the still from the newspaper front page (bottom left). Pretty good match I'm sure you'll agree.



Now for more fun - this is a picture from the front of the Houston Post on May 20th showing Gene Cernan's wife holding a photograph taken of the TV broadcast.



The front page is 2 days after the original broadcast, but here's how it works - TV show is done on the 18th. On the 19th Mrs Cernan is doorstepped with a print of the Earth from that broadcast, then her reaction is printed front page on the 20th. Simple.

Hmm - the Earth looks a bit vague there, could be anything. What if we use some magic that they didn't have at the time to improve things.

First rotate, it, then do some noise reduction to remove the dots from the photo, then some level adjustment to enhance the dark areas and you get this:



Reognise anything? Like that big hammer shaped cloud over the Atlantic (blue arrow)? How about the fog banks off Baja California (red arrow) and the inter-tropical convergence zone cloud )green arrow). How about the swirls of cloud in the North (yellow) and SOuth Pacific (pink)?

I can see them. If you can't, even with the pretty arrows to help you out, it's because you don't want to. Cloud patterns on a photograph taken from a TV broadcast. We saw it on TV. It happened.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

However, if we assume that the whole thing was filmed in a TV studio.

Which TV studio would that be? KLAS-TV out of Las Vegas?

Hank Greenspun, the original owner, sold KLAS station to aviation magnate Howard Hughes in 1968, reportedly because the tycoon was dismayed that the station never played his favorite late night movies. From the Wiki.

Well theirs definitive proof we went to the moon Elvis was in the international hotel in vegas. So obviously the moon landings were not faked.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA has rejected Chinese scientists clearance to attend science meetings.

This just in!

The original KLAS-TV studios:



Yeah right...

fiftyfifty
reply to post by ppk55

 

Also, this is the Daily Mail, they love dramatising things and planting seeds into the minds of it's readers to spark this kind of controversy, maybe it will grow into something which they can harvest further down the line.

As if all the other media outlets are objective, cool and calculating, and never dramatize anything. Give me a break!

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

NASA has rejected Chinese scientists clearance to attend science meetings.

This just in!

Good timing !

Did you see that Charlie B. blamed it all one middle managers, another "DICK NIXON"-style maneuver. lololol

NASA administrator Charles Bolden responded earlier this month by pledging to review the committee's decision, which he blamed on "mid-level managers" at the agency's Ames Research Center, which is hosting the event.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362:

I dispute the provenance of the Apollo 12 image that you posted. You linked to imageshack rather than an official NASA or .gov server. Is there some reason why you flipped NASA's image upside down and didn't mention that you flipped it?

If you wanna prove NASA's image are credible you will need better than imageshack and better than those blurry old newspaper jpg's.

This is what AS12-50-7362 looks like when served up off the .gov server. This is the link for it.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...




METAIt is common courtesy in the Apollo research threads to link directly to .gov servers that serve the image BEFORE discussing any Apollo images so that EVERYBODY has access to the .gov image to review it.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362:

I dispute the provenance of the Apollo 12 image that you posted. You linked to imageshack rather than an official NASA or .gov server. Is there some reason why you flipped NASA's image upside down and didn't mention that you flipped it?

If you wanna prove NASA's image are credible you will need better than imageshack and better than those blurry old newspaper jpg's.

This is what AS12-50-7362 looks like when served up off the .gov server. This is the link for it.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

METAIt is common courtesy in the Apollo research threads to link directly to .gov servers that serve the image BEFORE discussing any Apollo images so that EVERYBODY has access to the .gov image to review it.

Your funny he was showing you videos from Apollo and you try to change it by showing a picture taken from Apollo. I believe this would be transfer from your list. So i guess you admit you have no evidence at this point and conceded the debate?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362:

I dispute the provenance of the Apollo 12 image that you posted. You linked to imageshack rather than an official NASA or .gov server. Is there some reason why you flipped NASA's image upside down and didn't mention that you flipped it?

If you wanna prove NASA's image are credible you will need better than imageshack and better than those blurry old newspaper jpg's.

This is what AS12-50-7362 looks like when served up off the .gov server. This is the link for it.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

METAIt is common courtesy in the Apollo research threads to link directly to .gov servers that serve the image BEFORE discussing any Apollo images so that EVERYBODY has access to the .gov image to review it.

That all you got?

I used image shack because I knew it would show up on here, whereas often it just shows up as a link. I gave the image's identity. I rotated it so that north was at the top. Get over it.

Is it, or is it not, the same view of Earth? Are the weather patterns on it visible on the weather satellite photographs?

Are the images broadcast on TV shown on the next day's newspapers?

I wasn't awre of any such 'common courtesy' and I don't think you set the rules - I presented an image and I identified it. I used a source that would show up. Anyone idiot can find out whether or not the informatiuon in that image is correct whether it's upside down or not.
It's common courtesy in discussion threads to respond to evidence presented, not just pretend it never happened because you have absolutely no way of disputing it. It's common courtesy not to present faked magazine covers without identifying that you have faked them.

reply to post by dragonridr

Your funny he was showing you videos from Apollo and you try to change it by showing a picture taken from Apollo. I believe this would be transfer from your list. So i guess you admit you have no evidence at this point and conceded the debate?

OBmonkey posted an Apollo 12 image UPSIDE DOWN and hosted from imageshack. In a formal debate that action would result in a judgement of technical default in my favor. Was that the debate you were referring to?

reply to post by onebigmonkey

not to present faked magazine covers without identifying that you have faked them.

Are you guys still sore over that? It's called an illustration, it was never presented as an authentic magazine cover, and it amounts to exactly what like you did with your colorful dots and colorful arrows in your pictures.... it's....
and illustration. Geezus.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

not to present faked magazine covers without identifying that you have faked them.

Are you guys still sore over that? It's called an illustration, it was never presented as an authentic magazine cover, and it amounts to exactly what like you did with your colorful dots and colorful arrows in your pictures.... it's....
and illustration. Geezus.

so why are you so sore over onebigmonkey's illustration??

is it that you cant refute it and have run out of things to say so you make little petty remarks??