Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter


You are living in a fantasy world, choos! Richard Nixon has pulled the wool over your eyes and blinded you with science.

Whereas you've told us that the moon landings are the product of bouncing robots and space lasers.

Richard Nixon is, you're right, an appalling witness. But I'd take him over you any day.

SayonaraJupiter

Denial after denial, the Apollo Defenders have denied the importance and implications of the 700+ boxes of missing Apollo telemetry tapes. Those tapes could be used to find the missing modules.

Denial after denial, the Apollo Defenders have denied and underestimated the importance and implications of the 4 missing Apollo modules. But the missing modules are not relevant to Apollo? Do you see where your denialistic attitude is leading you, choos?

You are living in a fantasy world, choos! Richard Nixon has pulled the wool over your eyes and blinded you with science.

For 40 years NASA has covered up Nixon's Apollo. The Keep Out Zones are only the latest proof and confirmation of the ongoing cover-up.

another distraction, how does 700 missing boxes stop the apollo lunar missions from physically occuring??

another distraction, how does 4 missing ascent modules destined to be discarded physcially stop the apollo lunar missions from occuring?

your distractions are pointless.. why dont you get to the point about how these missing items will physically stop man from landing on the moon in 1969-72??

you are sadly mistaken, it is you who is living in a fantasy world, to completely ignore all evidence showing man can and has landed on the moon, and to just say missing items and nixon watching movies proves without a shadow of a doubt that man did not and could not land on the moon during the apollo era..

its lunacy, theres the niburu crowd saying theres a planet within our solar system even though there is no evidence to support this.. this is the crowd you belong with.. your fantasy world.. only propaganda to sway the gullible.. evidence is overrated right?

choos

oh and how will you do that?? ropes cant slow the descent down a little bit..

Are you joking? Sure hope so.

choos

and they didnt have a feasible way of recording hours of slow motion in case you have forgotten.

You assume they filmed hours of footage, non-stop, while on the 'lunar surface'? I hope not..

Short clips, and that's it.

choos

having total control of the jump makes the jump unrealistic.. dont you get it?? a jump is smooth from start to finish, there are no jerky movements when you jump.

The Mythbusters jump was smooth from start to finish...nice try.

choos

the ropes suspended a portion of the mythbusters weight and that remained constant throughout the jump, this is to ensure smoothness in the jump, if they decided oh we are going to use ropes to give him this much weight and then half way through the jump decide oh we are now going to reduce his weight even more, the jump will not be smooth it will be jerky.

You are saying a person that jumps with wires/ropes will look "jerky", if his initial 'weight' is reduced/adjusted mid-way into his jump?

You said..
"...if they decided oh we are going to use ropes to give him this much weight and then half way through the jump decide oh we are now going to reduce his weight even more.."

For some unknown reason, weight changes must happen on-the-fly! Noboby can set plans for it, prior to the jump!!

So it will look "jerky"!


Wires/ropes can lift a person very fast, or very slow. Wires can suspend him in mid-air, for a split second, or for several hours.

Wires can also descend a person to the ground very fast, or very slow.

And look just as 'smooth' as Young's jump.

choos

the ropes have been configured to represent a weight similar to the moon.. they do not vary during the jump, we know this because the jump is smooth throughout.. and why are you only focused on the descent?? what about the ascent?? seems the mythbusters reached a slightly higher height slightly faster also??

Again, a smooth jump with wires/ropes doesn't prove one constant weight was used.

The Mythbusters jump was never meant to replicate Young's jump, and it's the only jump done, as well.

You ask why he lands a split-second later than Young did, or went up a bit higher, and a bit faster, and I've told you why. You just can't accept it..perhaps you never will.

He lands a bit later. Did they try to land at the same time? No. Could they land him at the very same time, why not?

choos

making up technology that didnt exist in the 60's doesnt cut it.

Sums up Apollo, in a nutshell.

reply to post by turbonium1

You assume they filmed hours of footage, non-stop, while on the 'lunar surface'? I hope not..

Short clips, and that's it.

It is obvious that the only video you have seen from any space flight has been seen on Youtube. There were lengthy, continuous broadcasts both en route and on the surface. Please stop arguing from ignorance.

Duplicate post

dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Your clueless about how stunt rigging works i can see that.Do you realize how much they have to edit out using
cgi for wire stunts? Technology which didnt exist back them your trying to use rigging's used today in the 60s but in the 60s they didnt HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO HIDE THE RIGS!

watch this video it lets you see behind the scenes:

PS feel free to call motion works and ask them there professionals.

edit on 11/2/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Before Apollo 11, there was Kubrick's 2001.

They already knew how to remove any trace of wires.

No CGI is required for this. Sure, it was very crude by comparison, but it worked.

reply to post by turbonium1

Before Apollo 11, there was Kubrick's 2001.

They already knew how to remove any trace of wires.

No CGI is required for this. Sure, it was very crude by comparison, but it worked.

Not only do you not seem to have watched the entirety of broadcasts from the Moon, you have clearly never seen Kubrick's 2001! Please post a link to a scene of one of Kubrick's astronauts walking on the Moon that demonstrates the same techniques as you allege were used in Apollo.

DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

You assume they filmed hours of footage, non-stop, while on the 'lunar surface'? I hope not..

Short clips, and that's it.

It is obvious that the only video you have seen from any space flight has been seen on Youtube. There were lengthy, continuous broadcasts both en route and on the surface. Please stop arguing from ignorance.

I'm referring to the ALSJ, which means it is NASA.

They have the little clips.

But you aren't arguing from ignorance, right?

reply to post by turbonium1

I'm referring to the ALSJ, which means it is NASA.

They have the little clips.

Actually, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is not NASA. You can get complete, unedited recordings of all the lunar missions at Amazon:

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_10?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1384005828&sr=1-10&keywords=apollo +television

But you aren't arguing from ignorance, right?

Now that I have shown you where to find evidence that contradicts your statements, I trust that you will stop making them.

turbonium1

choos

oh and how will you do that?? ropes cant slow the descent down a little bit..

Are you joking? Sure hope so.

because its not as simple as slowing the descent down a little bit.. we are talking about the height they reach, the rate at which they go up and the rate at which they go down.. therefore using ropes to slow down the descent only, doesnt work get it yet?

You assume they filmed hours of footage, non-stop, while on the 'lunar surface'? I hope not..

Short clips, and that's it.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The Mythbusters jump was smooth from start to finish...nice try.

of course it was.. they did not change their weight mid jump.

You are saying a person that jumps with wires/ropes will look "jerky", if his initial 'weight' is reduced/adjusted mid-way into his jump?

You said..
"...if they decided oh we are going to use ropes to give him this much weight and then half way through the jump decide oh we are now going to reduce his weight even more.."

For some unknown reason, weight changes must happen on-the-fly! Noboby can set plans for it, prior to the jump!!

So it will look "jerky"!


Wires/ropes can lift a person very fast, or very slow. Wires can suspend him in mid-air, for a split second, or for several hours.

Wires can also descend a person to the ground very fast, or very slow.

And look just as 'smooth' as Young's jump.

ok lets try lamen terms..

how realistic would a jump be if the jump started at one speed and magically mid jump the speed changes to a faster or slower rate?

Again, a smooth jump with wires/ropes doesn't prove one constant weight was used.

a smooth jump proves that a jump was a jump without any changes of forces throughout. net force remained the same. if net force remains the same, then the force involved remained the same, if the forces involved remained the same than weight was constant.

The Mythbusters jump was never meant to replicate Young's jump, and it's the only jump done, as well.

You ask why he lands a split-second later than Young did, or went up a bit higher, and a bit faster, and I've told you why. You just can't accept it..perhaps you never will.

He lands a bit later. Did they try to land at the same time? No. Could they land him at the very same time, why not?

the mythbusters jump with jarrahs editing was meant to replicate john youngs jump.. the mythbusters done the hard work to get the weight to appear to be lunar weight.. the slowed footage was jarrahs attempt to finish the illusion..

now according to you, john youngs jump was done on earth under the same circumstances.. ropes to replicate lunar weight and slowed footage to finish the illusion..

however, galileo's principal dictates that all objects will fall at the same speed regardless of mass or composition, so they must have fallen at the same speed.. yet here we are, two jumps under the same conditions but different rates (up and down) and different heights..

Sums up Apollo, in a nutshell.

im glad you finally agree, in order to fake the apollo lunar missions, technology that didnt exist has to be made up to support the theory. like a time machine for instance.

turbonium1

Before Apollo 11, there was Kubrick's 2001.

They already knew how to remove any trace of wires.

No CGI is required for this. Sure, it was very crude by comparison, but it worked.

You obviously never seen 2001 a space odyssey they didnt do wire work they simply had people tip toe around like they were lighter. Do you know why because the technology didnt exist to edit out the rigs they would need to use in 1968. Here lets look at astronauts walking on the moon in 2001 movie.



So the funny part is your arguing they used the same method to film apollo when nothing was used to film 2001. But you never took the time to realize that Stanley Kubrick wasnt a god and could not make gravity disappear so he didnt try.

DJW001

Actually, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is not NASA.

Why is the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal hosted on hq.nasa.gov?

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Oh Jesus Christ with this moon landing hoax sh*t again. You people really are dense aren't you. Haven't we proved you wrong about 100 million times already?

I bet you were the same people that believed in the 2012 doomsday theory too huh?

Do you realize how many people would have to be in on the hoax? What's more, it would have been exceedingly easy for Russia, or quite a few other countries, to prove we didn't do it.

Here's a few physicists, who I know for a fact are smarter than you moon hoaxers, saying we did it, and why.





Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. However, I realize also that anything I have to say, or any proof I provide will either be dismissed by you hoaxers, or simply ignored. I have learned that in previous threads on the subject.

That being said, I encourage people to prove these hoaxers wrong, as I'm sure you have already done many times over. Just don't expect to actually get anywhere with any of them.

To the dying breed of Moon Hoax believers, do you really believe that this picture is a fake?
You cannot explain the 800+ lbs of rocks, that is enough to bury the hoax theory in the first place, but this picture really puts the lid on your hoax and buries it permanently. Go ahead, debunk it some more.

charlyv
To the dying breed of Moon Hoax believers, do you really believe that this picture is a fake?
You cannot explain the 800+ lbs of rocks, that is enough to bury the hoax theory in the first place, but this picture really puts the lid on your hoax and buries it permanently. Go ahead, debunk it some more.

At first it was comical, then it was sad, and now I'm just angry/depressed that there are people out there this stupid (hoaxers, not you). I'm actually embarrassed for the human race at this point.

DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Before Apollo 11, there was Kubrick's 2001.

They already knew how to remove any trace of wires.

No CGI is required for this. Sure, it was very crude by comparison, but it worked.

Not only do you not seem to have watched the entirety of broadcasts from the Moon, you have clearly never seen Kubrick's 2001! Please post a link to a scene of one of Kubrick's astronauts walking on the Moon that demonstrates the same techniques as you allege were used in Apollo.

2001 effectively simulated a 0 g environment, but you believe we couldn't simulate a 1/6 g environment at the time? Do you think they couldn't hide/edit out wires on film back then?

They were hiding wires back in 1950, in the film 'Destination Moon. See it for yourself, at 5:47 of this clip...

www.youtube.com...

On a side note, why do you think it's odd that Kubrick could simulate 0 g so accurately, but never even attempted to simulate the lunar gravity? We know that they'd already done a (very crude) lunar gravity simulation, in a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick. By the late '60s, almost everybody knew that the moon had 1/6 g. NASA was even visiting Kubrick in England, while he was filming 2001, for crying out loud. And Kubrick was a stickler for every detail being accurately portrayed in his films.

The moon itself was not remotely accurately portrayed in 2001, either. It was much more realistic looking in the same cheesy 1950 flick. We had satellite images of the lunar surface, as well.
But again, Kubrick was somehow obvlivious as to how the lunar surface looked. His moon looked nothing like the real moon.

Why would his moon look nothing like the real moon? He obvioulsy wanted it to look different, to appear ignorant about the moon. He seemed to be such an idiot about the moon, so he could never have filmed the realistic-looking Apollo footage!



www.youtube.com...

turbonium1

2001 effectively simulated a 0 g environment, but you believe we couldn't simulate a 1/6 g environment at the time? Do you think they couldn't hide/edit out wires on film back then?

They simulate 0g environments all the time in movies. Just look at Apollo 13 (movie), or almost any other space movie. The trick is you build the set in a plane and then put the plane in a steep dive. The difference is, you can't put the entire moon inside a plane.

choos

a smooth jump proves that a jump was a jump without any changes of forces throughout. net force remained the same. if net force remains the same, then the force involved remained the same, if the forces involved remained the same than weight was constant.

No. Wires are used to control his rate of ascent, his duration in mid-air, and his rate of descent. The ascent can be done extremely slow, or extremely fast, or at any rate of speed within that range. The duration he's held in mid-air can be none, or virtually forever, or any duration within that range. The descent can be equal to, or anything slower than, 1 g speed, but not faster than 1 g speed. At least by that method, anyway.

Such variances will appear seamless, because it's all controlled by the wires. It does not require a fixed weight to be smooth, because the wires are controlling the jump.

choos


the mythbusters jump with jarrahs editing was meant to replicate john youngs jump.. the mythbusters done the hard work to get the weight to appear to be lunar weight.. the slowed footage was jarrahs attempt to finish the illusion..

You think the Mythbusters jump was done to look like a jump on the moon??? That's pure bunk! It only looked like Young's jump after Jarrah White slowed it down! It didn't look anything like Young's jump until then. Mythbusters wanted to make it look totally different than a (so-called) moon jump. Mythbusters was trying to show a jump on Earth can't replicate a jump on the moon, because it's always going to look too fast, as it's simply impossible to slow down a jump!!

choos

now according to you, john youngs jump was done on earth under the same circumstances.. ropes to replicate lunar weight and slowed footage to finish the illusion..

however, galileo's principal dictates that all objects will fall at the same speed regardless of mass or composition, so they must have fallen at the same speed.. yet here we are, two jumps under the same conditions but different rates (up and down) and different heights..

The natural laws of physics do not apply, because wires are distorting the laws. For example, the laws of physics state that we cannot float in mid-air for an hour, but we can float in mid-air for an hour with wires.

Do you understand that?

reply to post by turbonium1

Such variances will appear seamless, because it's all controlled by the wires. It does not require a fixed weight to be smooth, because the wires are controlling the jump.

And who controls the wires? You are assuming an army of stagehands who are perfectly co-ordinated not just for a single jump, but for two astronauts and assorted equipment covering a large area over long stretches of time. Where are these stagehands, and why do they not list the wire work they did for NASA in their resumes?

reply to post by turbonium1


ok logic is failing you.. i get what you are saying about wires being able to control the jump but that is not the point im trying to raise.. it has little to do with the wires at all.. let me try to explain your folly this way..

lets assume for a moment that NASA did indeed fake the lunar landing.. however NASA must adhere to several restrictions.. gravity for instance is such a restriction.. NASA must under all circumstances get gravity perfect in all free falling objects they display otherwise the game will be up before it begins, and knowing that it hasnt been busted for 40+ years they have done an excellent good job so far..

now john youngs jumping salute, many people have already calculated the acceleration due to gravity for his jump here is one such example:



fake or not it doesnt matter, what is very important is the acceleration due to gravity that they have calculated, which is 1.62m/s^2 you can do this yourself if you wish.. this is a constant and will most likely never change you cannot deny that the acceleration due to the moons lunar gravity is not 1.62m/s^2 doing so is denying reality.

so now that we have established that john youngs jump (fake or not) represents lunar gravity very accurately, we can use it as a base, a standard to compare against.

now we can move on, you are saying that the ropes are able to slow a jump down, but there is no way in the known world ropes can speed up a natural jump, wires/ropes can only pull they cannot push. knowing this when we compare a jump with ropes and a natural jump without ropes its safe to assume that a natural jump will be completed at or faster than a jump with ropes.

so when we compare a natural jump without ropes to the mythbusters jump, it will also be safe to assume that the natural jump will occur at or faster than the mythbusters jump with ropes.

now that those two issues have been resolved we can move on, now jarrah white is very adamant on his 66% slowed footage is what is needed to accurately replicate lunar gravity on earth, you agree with this otherwise you would not have posted his video..

but what we see here is that jarrahs edited mythbusters jump occurs faster than john youngs jump, and having established above a natural jump without ropes on earth slowed to 66% will occur the same or faster than the mythbusters and in extension will occur faster than john youngs jump.

now how can this be? jarrah white is very adamant that 66% is the magic number to slow footage down.. yet when a natural jump is slowed down to 66% its still faster than john youngs jump?? I have already established that john youngs jump, very accurately represents lunar gravity. So a natural jump slowed to 66% should be the same speed as john youngs jump.. but its not?? its faster??

so either;
1, you have definitively proven jarrah wrong and made him look silly as well as yourself
2, john youngs jump was filmed in lowered gravity.

i dont know if i can explain this any more simpler without resorting to snorts and grunts, so good luck trying to wrap your head around this.