Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


It in no way shape or form simulated 0 g in 2001. You never saw his movie have you or you wouldnt even attempt to make the argument that 2001 effectively simulated gravity. Here look at this scene does this look like they simulated 0 g? The stewardess bumps around the shuttle like she was drunk.



Thjen there is this one were they had to spin the entire room to create a simulation of 0 g. And the funny part is it looks phony to us today because we have cgi to edit the backgrounds technology they didnt have in 1968!



So do you want to try again about how effectively they were abled to replicate 0 g because having people walk slow dont cut it does it ?

Oh and want to see what wire work looks like trying to simulate 1/6th gravity i give you this from a movie watch the astronauts hover.So even today its still hard to get it right and trust me Steven Spielberg is the special effects master.

DJW001

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.

I assume, from your reply, that you now understand we've used wires to simulate lunar gravity on film, before Apollo?

If so, then it is simply a matter of logistics.

What "assorted equipment" do you think would need to be suspended by wires?

As for the two astronauts...

How many times - in total - do we see them 'jump' any higher than someone could jump on Earth? You say it's "not just..a single jump".

Do we see such a 'jump' being done on every mission which (supposedly) landed on the moon? Afaik, no such 'jumps' are seen in any of the Apollo 11 or 12 footage. How many are done in the Apollo 14 footage? In Apollo 15? Other than Young's jump, how many others were done in Apollo 16? What about Apollo 17?

In other words, how much Apollo footage would require the use of wires? Why do you think wires would be required "over long stretches of time"?

If you think it would require "covering a large area", then exactly how large an area? I'm sure you realize that massive stage sets existed at the time, right?

I've seen very little Apollo footage that would require the use of wires, and nothing that would require "..an army of stagehands who are perfectly co-ordinated..".

DJW001
Where are these stagehands,

Umm..where do you think they'd be?

DJW001
and why do they not list the wire work they did for NASA in their resumes?

Do you seriously think they'd put such a thing in their resumes? You can't be that dense.

DJW001

Where are these stagehands,

turbonium1

Umm..where do you think they'd be?

DJW001 Do you seriously think they'd put such a thing in their resumes? You can't be that dense.

I think we all might be suffering from a bout of l a b y r i n t h i t i s. What do you think DJW?



And Kubrick's labyrinth in "The Shining"

choos
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.

They don't need to speed him up more than a natural jump, they need to slow him down. They don't need to "push" him down - why would they do that? Why would they need his descent to be faster than 1 g? This makes no sense whatsoever.

choos

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.

Are you saying that a natural jump on Earth would always be completed faster than a rope-assisted jump on Earth? If so, you are wrong. Ropes only have to pull the person up to the same height at a faster rate. They don't need to use the ropes from that point, just a natural, 1 g descent. The rope-assisted jump will then be completed faster than the natural jump.

Not that they would do it, however. I'm just pointing out to you that it could be done.

choos

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.

It's a false assumption, as I've just shown you.

choos

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??

As I've told you many times, they can make their jump match up with Young's by adjusting the wires. Why can't you grasp this point?

dragonridr

It in no way shape or form simulated 0 g in 2001.

That's why the film is regarded as a milestone achievement in special effects, right?

Do you want to see 0 g astronauts in a film from 1955? See the clip at 3:32...

www.youtube.com...

Anything else you think couldn't be done in 1969?

turbonium1

They don't need to speed him up more than a natural jump, they need to slow him down. They don't need to "push" him down - why would they do that? Why would they need his descent to be faster than 1 g? This makes no sense whatsoever.

why would you say ropes to push someone down?? ropes cannot push at all.. im making the point that ropes cannot make a jump occur faster than 1g, unless you have ropes to physically pull them down, which is not the case.

Are you saying that a natural jump on Earth would always be completed faster than a rope-assisted jump on Earth? If so, you are wrong. Ropes only have to pull the person up to the same height at a faster rate. They don't need to use the ropes from that point, just a natural, 1 g descent. The rope-assisted jump will then be completed faster than the natural jump.

Not that they would do it, however. I'm just pointing out to you that it could be done.

yes a natural jump will always be faster or at the same speed as a jump with ropes.

heres the problem with your ropes pulling a person upwards.. if you pull a person with ropes upwards really fast what needs to happen before he can come back down?? thats right he needs to wash off that speed but with what?? ropes cannot push him down to wash off the speed only gravity can slow him down..

so what you have done is accelerate a man with ropes faster than he jump effectively adding more energy than he can add with his own legs, which will result in the man going higher as gravity slows him down and brings him back to earth.. even if you use the ropes to bring him to the same height as a natural jump, the ropes will introduce a force the same as the legs therefore reaching the same height at the same time.. seriously learn some basic highschool physics.. you are making a fool of yourself.

so your theory about ropes pulling someone up and letting gravity to pull him down will be slower than a natural jump end of story.. there is no way ropes pulling upwards can complete a jump faster than a natural jump without ropes.

It's a false assumption, as I've just shown you.

its a true assumption you are just ignorant of basic physics.. do you want me to get technical?? heres a hint use energy equations.

As I've told you many times, they can make their jump match up with Young's by adjusting the wires. Why can't you grasp this point?

because his 66% is wrong.. plain wrong.. to effectively replicate lunar gravity on earth you need to slow the footage down 2.45 times. 66% is rubbish made up by jarrah to fool the gullible and by the looks of it it worked..

ropes and 66% does not reflect lunar gravity.. and do you know how complicated it will be to control every single free falling object absolutely precisely??

here at 1 min 24 seconds is a free falling freely rotating bag being thrown away which represents lunar gravity also.. how the hell did they use ropes on this?

turbonium1

dragonridr

It in no way shape or form simulated 0 g in 2001.

That's why the film is regarded as a milestone achievement in special effects, right?

Do you want to see 0 g astronauts in a film from 1955? See the clip at 3:32...

www.youtube.com...

Anything else you think couldn't be done in 1969?

heres a hint notice that orange block on his right?? and notice how his rotation is not smooth?? and you think that is successful 0g?? hmmm.. i guess its quite easy to fool you.

reply to post by turbonium1

I assume, from your reply, that you now understand we've used wires to simulate lunar gravity on film, before Apollo?

Are you saying that you, personally, have used wires to simulate lunar gravity? I seriously doubt this claim as you seem to have no understanding of what would be involved.

If so, then it is simply a matter of logistics.

Logistics is rarely simple. Please provide specific answers to the questions I have raised, explaining the logistics in detail. How large would the studio need to be? How could the distances be spanned with the sort of cranes or catwalks necessary to "fly" the astronauts and equipment? How many stagehands would be required? How many lighting technicians? How do you go about recruiting this talent and keeping them sworn to secrecy? Who provides the on set catering? Well?

What "assorted equipment" do you think would need to be suspended by wires?

Anything that leaves the astronauts' hands. Remember, one of the characteristics of the motion in the Apollo recordings is the tendency for things to fall "slowly" while traveling "normally" in the horizontal direction.

As for the two astronauts...

How many times - in total - do we see them 'jump' any higher than someone could jump on Earth? You say it's "not just..a single jump".

Notice the way the astronauts "glide" as they move. This would require being suspended by wires if it were to be staged on Earth.

Do we see such a 'jump' being done on every mission which (supposedly) landed on the moon? Afaik, no such 'jumps' are seen in any of the Apollo 11 or 12 footage. How many are done in the Apollo 14 footage? In Apollo 15? Other than Young's jump, how many others were done in Apollo 16? What about Apollo 17?

Again, every gliding step has the quality of a "jump." You need to observe closely for once.

In other words, how much Apollo footage would require the use of wires? Why do you think wires would be required "over long stretches of time"?

Because the astronauts bounce up, down and sideways over very large areas for very long stretches of uninterrupted time. Try actually watching a complete clip. Here's an hours worth:

If you think it would require "covering a large area", then exactly how large an area? I'm sure you realize that massive stage sets existed at the time, right?

How large a set do you think you would need for the above recording? Why does the dust "splash" the way it does? That would require the set to be a gigantic vacuum chamber. How many large vacuum chambers are there with rigging for wire work? Did you notice how the astronauts arms seemed to move "normally" when they reached for something, but they settled down "slowly?" Even when they are standing still, they would need to be on wires.

I've seen very little Apollo footage that would require the use of wires, and nothing that would require "..an army of stagehands who are perfectly co-ordinated..".

You have now... assuming you have the courage to watch the above video.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Well? Where are the people who faked Apollo? Half a million people worked on it and not one turned whistle blower? Your beloved Dick Nixon couldn't even pull off a burglary!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


We can all ways count on you to bring up the irrelevant cant we? How about why not try to explain yout ideas such as why NASA is trying to hide those ETs from us. And why the ETs care about NASA being on the moon.

reply to post by turbonium1


They put a guy on a spinning wheel and you think that simulates 0 g. What you couldnt figure out how they did it they didnt even have the technology to hide it so its very obvious. See your problem is you bought hook line and sinker into this because you think they could have been faked. Well it couldnt they didnt have the computers needed to do CGI work what you see is what you get. Even trying to hide wires they couldnt do it the best they could do was paint them black and keep them thin as possible trying to prevent the camera from seeing them. They did this by controlling the view such as in your example. They tried to use the door frame to hide the fact he was hooked to a spinning orange wheel. As you can see it didnt work the director got to greedy and showed to much of the astronaut instead of being content with having part of the frame cut off.

Now with apollo we dont have controlled perspectives things like close ups to hide rigging etc. Its all done in the open you see the entire scenes so how could they hide the equipment they would need since they cant edit using computers?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Well? Where are the people who faked Apollo? CARD STACKING Half a million people worked on it GLITTERING GENERALITIES and not one turned whistle blower? TESTIMONIAL+PLAIN FOLKS+BANDWAGON. Your beloved Dick Nixon NAME CALLING couldn't even pull off a burglary! TRANSFER WITH CARD STACKING

I am not convinced by your propaganda techniques.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I am not convinced by your propaganda techniques.

Your propaganda techniques are pathetic. All you can do is name call and evade!

I'm not sure if I'm convinced or not that we had people on the moon because if NASA went there, then why haven't they returned by now? And if they were there in '69, then why wasn't a base built there, at least by the eighties? I think there would've been more activity on the moon had we went there to begin with. It makes no sense. The first to build a base on the moon wins, IMO. I think laws need to be passed now that no entity can claim any more than 1/2sm for their base. That way, the moon won't be owned by greedy business people. It belongs to all of us. Let us never lose sight of that fact. *-That is, if it isn't already owned by some alien force. Maybe it's their spaceship? IDK.

reply to post by Fylgje


It costs an awful lot of money to get there, and costs even more to put a base there for extended missions (the cost of radiation shielding required for extended stays, plus the cost of transporting and/or producing crew consumables).

The 1970s were a turbulent time, and most of the public no longer wanted to spend money on moon missions. It got to the point that the cost of the final moon missions outraged many Americans who felt that money should have been spent on earth instead (helping house the homeless, feed the hungry, educate the children, etc.).

Then in the early 1970s, the Space Shuttle program began (the design of the space shuttle), and the budget realities would not allow for both a space shuttle and a Moon program. Therefore, Apollo was cut.

Maybe they felt they could eventually go back, but without a good reason to do so, they never did. The only reason the United States went in the first place is to prove to the rest of the world their technological superiority over the Soviet Union -- to show that Democracy was the better way forward than Communism. With that issue already settled, future missions to the Moon became meaningless.

Even Soviet Russia no longer felt the need to pursue their own quest to get to the moon once the U.S. beat them there.

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Fylgje

 

It costs an awful lot of money to get there, and costs even more to put a base there for extended missions (the cost of radiation shielding required for extended stays, plus the cost of transporting and/or producing crew consumables).

The 1970s were a turbulent time, and most of the public no longer wanted to spend money on moon missions. It got to the point that the cost of the final moon missions outraged many Americans who felt that money should have been spent on earth instead (helping house the homeless, feed the hungry, educate the children, etc.).

Then in the early 1970s, the Space Shuttle program began (the design of the space shuttle), and the budget realities would not allow for both a space shuttle and a Moon program. Therefore, Apollo was cut.

Maybe they felt they could eventually go back, but without a good reason to do so, they never did. The only reason the United States went in the first place is to prove to the rest of the world their technological superiority over the Soviet Union -- to show that Democracy was the better way forward than Communism. With that issue already settled, future missions to the Moon became meaningless.

Even Soviet Russia no longer felt the need to pursue their own quest to get to the moon once the U.S. beat them there.

edit on 11/13/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

True but now china and india have a space race starting both plan missions to the moon as a sense of national pride and rub the others face in it so to speak.

SayonaraJupiter

More Missing Modules

The LM Snoopy's descent stage was left in orbit, but eventually crashed onto the lunar surface because of the Moon's non-uniform gravitational field; its location was not tracked. Source Wiki

Snoopy's ascent stage location is currently unknown, and amateur astronomers are searching for it.

That makes 4 missing modules so far in this thread.
Apollo 11 Eagle, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 16 Orion, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, decent stage.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, ascent stage.

Stakes are high. Put your chips down.

The Apollo Defenders have also failed to answer which astronaut on Apollo 12 snapped the picture AS12-50-7362. It's possible that this image, 7362, including the entire Apollo 12 Magazine Q, it's possible that it were snapped by a robotic arm with a camera attachment. Howard Hughes was building such things in 1959.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo Defenders have also failed to answer which astronaut on Apollo 12 snapped the picture AS12-50-7362. It's possible that this image, 7362, including the entire Apollo 12 Magazine Q, it's possible that it were snapped by a robotic arm with a camera attachment. Howard Hughes was building such things in 1959.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

more failed propaganda to trick the gullible.. completely irrelevent to the thread..

why dont you ask the really important questions, for instance "who took that photo of richard nixon on the times magazine cover" i mean for all we know richard nixon probably never existed as president and that photo prop was taken by robots because richard nixon was busy watching movies and paying howard hughes to faking the apollo missions by himself.

p.s. are you suggesting that a mobot was inside the command module just to take photos?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

it's possible that it were snapped by a robotic arm with a camera attachment.

No, it is not possible! Even now, robotic cameras are not sophisticated enough to find an interesting object to photograph, then compose the shot properly. Photographs from space probes are pre-programmed from Earth, using careful calculations based on the laws of motion. This was beyond the computing technology of the time.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And you failed to answer the questin: whose arm is in this image on magazine Q:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you're conceding that the photographs in magazine Q were taken during a mission to the moon between the dates that Apolo 12 happened, something which is confirmed by the photographs of Earth that occur throughout that magazine, then you have to concede the person in that photograph also went there, and took photographs of the lunar far side while they were at it.