Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by choos

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

Yes, I am suggesting that.

And you are still avoiding the question who snapped 7362. You can't hope to defend 7362 or 7373 until you figure out what astronaut snapped those pics.

And I'll remind you that Apollo 12's Magazine Q doesn't have any pictures of the crew. Which is strange, if they were taking pictures of dirty windows they would snap a picture of themselves with a floating screwdriver or flashlight.

Am I right?

The Apollo Defenders need to stipulate which "clean" window of the Apollo 12 command module was used to take the image AS12-50-7362 and they also need to stipulate which 1 of the 3 Apollo 12 astronauts snapped 7362.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And you are still avoiding the question who snapped 7362. You can't hope to defend 7362 or 7373 until you figure out what astronaut snapped those pics.

Why not? Please be specific. I happen to know who took each picture, but I refuse to divulge that information until you explain its relevance. Failure to do so only weakens your case further.

And I'll remind you that Apollo 12's Magazine Q doesn't have any pictures of the crew. Which is strange, if they were taking pictures of dirty windows they would snap a picture of themselves with a floating screwdriver or flashlight.

Yet every other film magazine contains photos of the crew. Why do you not single those out? Failure to do so further weakens your case.

Am I right?

No, you are completely wrong. You have been challenged to prove that Richard Nixon, crucial to your theory, actually existed. You have failed to do so. Until you can prove that Richard Nixon actually existed, please stop trying to confuse the issue.

SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo Defenders need to stipulate which "clean" window of the Apollo 12 command module was used to take the image AS12-50-7362 and they also need to stipulate which 1 of the 3 Apollo 12 astronauts snapped 7362.

Your still at it asking irrelevant questions. Simple answer to your question the one that was facing the earth.You really are clueless in fact i can tell you who took the picture simple answer and a person with your vast research skills should too. Ill give you a hint check the sleep schedules on board 2 astronauts were in there sleep cycle.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

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

Yes, I am suggesting that.

well then.. let me prove to you that you are wrong..

i dont know what you think a mobot is or what its capable of but you are seriously overestimating it.

the mobot weighs over 4000lbs.. so can you imagine how much difficulty the command module would have of reaching the moon with something so heavy inside, if its even at all possible??

secondly.. how do you suppose a mobot is supposed to fit inside the CM??

reply to post by choos


You also forgot to mention the cable leading from earth to the module. Since it was controlled by a cable and a giant computer that took up an entire room.But then again we know NASA is capable of time travel and they could have just built androids that look like the astronauts. I figure will be capable of that around 2050 or so.

reply to post by choos

secondly.. how do you suppose a mobot is supposed to fit inside the CM??

choos, the picture you showed is the 4000 pound lunar mobot, not the specially built camera arm designed to fit inside the command module.

clavius.org says that the lunar module on touchdown was 7184 kilograms = 15837.99 pounds.

clavius.org is using the Apollo 12 lunar module in the example of the math problem.

Subtracting this from the launch mass gives a landing mass of 15,804 lbm (7,184 kg). Source www.clavius.org...

Howard Hughes sent those lunar mobots to the moon prior to each of the televised Apollo missions were launched. And here is the mission plan for it:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I see an arm in this picture but it's not connected to any astronaut because it's a mobot camera arm. Who else is in that module? Elvis? Aliens?

SayonaraJupiter

Howard Hughes sent those lunar mobots to the moon prior to each of the televised Apollo missions were launched. And here is the mission plan for it:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

No. You're getting increasingly desperate now.

If you'd bothered to read it, you'd know that this is a report of a study into the feasibility of such a program, published 3 months after we landed and 10 months after our first circumlunar trip. The report estimates it would be ready in 4 years - a year after Apollo 17 left the moon behind. They would be sent in advance of a lunar mission, but astronauts would meet up with the equipment.

The kit wasn't built or used. Feel free to give us the launch dates and locations of the remote LRVs sent in advance to the moon.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


That report is a lot more important than you think it is.

SayonaraJupiter

choos, the picture you showed is the 4000 pound lunar mobot, not the specially built camera arm designed to fit inside the command module.

clavius.org says that the lunar module on touchdown was 7184 kilograms = 15837.99 pounds.

clavius.org is using the Apollo 12 lunar module in the example of the math problem.

Subtracting this from the launch mass gives a landing mass of 15,804 lbm (7,184 kg). Source www.clavius.org...

Howard Hughes sent those lunar mobots to the moon prior to each of the televised Apollo missions were launched. And here is the mission plan for it:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

so a smaller mobot was inside the command module that was sent to the to take photos from inside the CM.. which was in replacement of the astronauts.. so a 2000lbs mobot (guess) was to replace 3 guys weighing about 170lbs each which is about 510lbs all up..

which means you are still about 1500lbs overweight..

not to mention it still wont fit through the hatch of the command module.. which would mean it would have to have had been placed inside the command module prior to finishing construction.. this leads to everyone building the command module, which would equate to few hundred people to actually be in on the secret..

i dont know how a study plan for the LRV is meant to be about the mission plan for a mobot... but funny how this mission plan for your mobot to setup the lunar landing sites was written in october 1969 when the launch of apollo 11 was in july 1969.

lets not forget to mention that your report has a section on "TEST PLANNING/TESTING".. so i guess this proves without a doubt (for you only) that howard hughes really did indeed have a time machine.


p.s. as pointed out by OBMonkey:

The implementation plan is based on the following assumptions:

(6) Launch is assumed to occur in the last quarter of calendar year 1973.

oh dear.. looks like they had to use their time machine afterall.

choos

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

Wrong.

choos

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..

Same as gravity slows down the man jumping with NO ropes. I've already pointed this out to you.

choos

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,

Yes, wires (or ropes) will accelerate a man up from the ground faster than normal.

choos
which will result in the man going higher as gravity slows him down and brings him back to earth..

Both men are jumping up to the exact same height. But, the man with wires/ropes will reach that height faster than the man without wires/ropes does.


At that point, it's just Earth's gravity which slows down both men, and at the same speed.

choos

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..

Wrong.

Saying the ropes (or wires) are "a force the same as the legs".....is total nonsense.

Ropes can lift a person 40 ft. up. So your legs have the same force? Are you 'able to leap tall buildings in a single bound' ?

Same force? Gadzooks, man!

choos

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.

No go, as I've already shown.

choos

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??

I have it as 67%....but 66% will suffice for argument's sake...

Also, it is 50% speed for one mission, and 66% (or 67%) speed for all the other missions.

(Btw - Jarrah didn't come up with 50% speed, someone else did.)

At 2x speed, every movement of the Apollo 11 astronauts looks identical to movement on Earth. But 2x speed doesn't work for the other missions. It looks much too fast, and their movements are unnatural. But it IS normal Earth-bound motion at 1.5x speed, which is derived from Jarrah's 67%.

If Apollo was genuine, all the missions would have consistency in astronauts' movements. It is not, obviously.

We do not move at different speeds on Earth. Nor would we move at different speeds on the moon, either.

Moving at different speeds does not reflect a genuine lunar environment. It does not reflect ANY environment.

It's a red flag for a manipulation of the footage.

What are the two speeds? Exactly 1/2 speed, and exactly 2/3 speed. A red flag can't be any more obvious!

choos

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.

Now that's ironic, coming from a believer of the Apollo fable!


A low-budget sci-fi flick tries to simulate 0g, three years before NASA even exists, and the biggest problems boil down to your opinion, that it's "not smooth" enough??

I guess this shows you how we couldn't possibly have simulated 0g, with a thousand-fold budget, some 13 years later?

And we all know how a real moon landing would've been much easier to do in 1969 than doing a realistic-looking fake.... right?

Dream on...

reply to post by turbonium1

At 2x speed, every movement of the Apollo 11 astronauts looks identical to movement on Earth.

Please post a clip of someone wearing fifty pounds of bulky, movement restricting clothing zipping around like these guys on the Earth's surface:



Are you saying that this movement, which involves constantly hopping from foot to foot at high speed and flailing arms like a maniac looks natural to you?

turbonium1

Wrong.

oh?? how will ropes pulling up only, going to make a jump faster than a natural jump???

Same as gravity slows down the man jumping with NO ropes. I've already pointed this out to you.

when you typed "wrong" up there, it was in reference to saying that ropes pulling a man upwards is possible to configure so that you can make a jump occur faster than a natural jump..

gravity will always slow someone down going upwards at one rate.. that rate never changes.. the faster you pull him up the longer it takes to slow him down and re-accelerate him to bring him back down..

and during the time gravity is slowing someone down they reach a higher height.. why am i explaining basic physics to you when you clearly have no ability for it.

Yes, wires (or ropes) will accelerate a man up from the ground faster than normal.

faster up, but then acceleration due to gravity remains constant regardless of ropes or not.. so what does that mean?? it means the faster you get pulled up the higher you reach.. how many times must i school you?

Both men are jumping up to the exact same height. But, the man with wires/ropes will reach that height faster than the man without wires/ropes does.


At that point, it's just Earth's gravity which slows down both men, and at the same speed.

ummm... yes the ropes will make him reach that height faster than the man without ropes.. however he will exceed that height, since gravity is the only thing to slow him down..

they faster you pull someone upwards, the more energy you have given him, resulting in him reaching a higher height.. i bet this makes absolutely no sense to you..

Wrong.

Saying the ropes (or wires) are "a force the same as the legs".....is total nonsense.

Ropes can lift a person 40 ft. up. So your legs have the same force? Are you 'able to leap tall buildings in a single bound' ?

Same force? Gadzooks, man!

ropes pulling a man up imparts energy into the person.. when something moves energy is imparted.. goodluck trying to understand this.. i feel like im arguing with a 5 year old.

No go, as I've already shown.

ok, prepare to be schooled.. (again)

lets say a man (70kg) jump up natural at 5m/s (18km/hr) initial velocity.. how much kinetic energy has he given himself?

ke=.5mv^2
ke=0.5*70*5^2
ke=875kj of energy was imparted into the jump

energy is always conserved

so kinetic energy will turn into gravitational potential energy and from that we can work out the height they will reach, which is:

ke=>Pe
Pe=mgh
875=70*9.81*h
h=1.74metres

if a man jumps up at an initial velocity of 5m/s he will reach a height of 1.74 metres.

since we know he will reach a height of 1.74m we can work out how long he will stay airborne.
first we need to work out how long it takes for gravity to pull him down from 1.74m height.

s=ut+.5at^2
1.74=0+0.5*9.81*t^2
t=0.35474^0.5
t=0.596 seconds

we double that since gravity can only slow down a person at one constant acceleration.. so total "airtime" is 1.192 seconds..

but you reckon if we pull someone up at a faster rate, then we can complete the jump faster.. well lets see how your version of physics works..

ke=.5mv^2
ke=0.5*70*10^2
ke=3500kj

already we can see by doubling the initial jump velocity we have imparted 3500kj into the jump instead of 875kj.......

so how high will we jump??

Pe=mgh
3500=70*9.81*h
h=5.097metres

so if we impart 3500kj into the jump and earths gravity begins to slow the man down as soon as he leaves the ground he will reach a minimum of 5m.. now correct me if im wrong but 5metres is higher than 1.74metre right??

oh whats that?? you want to jump at 10m/s but peak at a height no greater than 1.74m also?? the gravitational potential energy remains the same, mass remains the same, height changes from 5m down to 1.74m leaving only the acceleration due to gravity to change..

Pe=mgh
3500=70*g*1.74
g=28.74m/s^2

so in order to get the scenario that you have described we need to do the jump at a gravitational acceleration force of 28.74m/s^2.. earth is 9.81m/s^2.. so obviously this is not possible.. therefore the height they reach will be no lower than 5metres..

well how long will gravity take to bring someone from 5 metres high??

s=ut+.5at^2
5=0+0.5*9.81*t^2
t=1.02^0.5
t=1.01 seconds.. but thats only half the jump

so it will take about 2.01 seconds to complete the jump if you jumped and had ropes pull a man up at double the speed.. just under double the time.. congratulations on trying to break physics.. but no.

I have it as 67%....but 66% will suffice for argument's sake...

Also, it is 50% speed for one mission, and 66% (or 67%) speed for all the other missions.

in order to accurately portray lunar gravity on earth, you need to slow it down 2.45times.. not 66%/67% not 50%, there is not mathematical support for 66%/67% nor 50%.

(Btw - Jarrah didn't come up with 50% speed, someone else did.)
yea hoax believers who know nothing..

At 2x speed, every movement of the Apollo 11 astronauts looks identical to movement on Earth. But 2x speed doesn't work for the other missions. It looks much too fast, and their movements are unnatural. But it IS normal Earth-bound motion at 1.5x speed, which is derived from Jarrah's 67%.

jarrahs 66/67% does not explain this video of a bag free falling and freely rotating at lunar gravity.. because if you calculate the gravity force using only 66/67% to find the gravity for on the freely falling bag it will come out with a gravity for of under 9.81..

for example
on the lunar surface something falls 5m how long will it take?
s=ut+.5at^2
5=0+0.5*1.62*t^2
t=2.485 seconds in real time

how about on earth from 5m?
5=0+0.5*9.81*t^2
t=1.0096 seconds to fall the same distance on earth..

what factor is that? about 2.46 due to rounding..

lets use jarrahs and your 66/67%
so on earth it should take the freefalling object 1.502 times faster than the original lunar video
lets work out the gravity on "earth" for that..

first lets find out what is 1.502 times faster than 2.485 seconds
its 1.654 seconds

5=0+0.5*a*1.654^2
a=3.655m/s^2

thats not earths gravity... so in order to use jarrahs 66/67% slowdown speed they needed to film not on earth.

If Apollo was genuine, all the missions would have consistency in astronauts' movements. It is not, obviously.

We do not move at different speeds on Earth. Nor would we move at different speeds on the moon, either.

Moving at different speeds does not reflect a genuine lunar environment. It does not reflect ANY environment.

It's a red flag for a manipulation of the footage.

What are the two speeds? Exactly 1/2 speed, and exactly 2/3 speed. A red flag can't be any more obvious!

facepalm.. facepalm.. facepalm.. seriously why do we even bother with such ignorance.. look the maths is in this post.. i doubt you will understand it so i dont know why i bothered but its there.. in order to replicate this following video of a free falling freely rotating bag using 66/67% slowdown they must have filmed it not in earths gravitational field and not in the moons gravitational field.. so congratulations.. you have successfully denied your own existence.. (starts around 1min 24)

turbonium1

Now that's ironic, coming from a believer of the Apollo fable!


A low-budget sci-fi flick tries to simulate 0g, three years before NASA even exists, and the biggest problems boil down to your opinion, that it's "not smooth" enough??

I guess this shows you how we couldn't possibly have simulated 0g, with a thousand-fold budget, some 13 years later?

And we all know how a real moon landing would've been much easier to do in 1969 than doing a realistic-looking fake.... right?

Dream on...

and yes it does seem easier to land man on the moon than it was to actually fake it..

by the looks of it in order to fake the apollo lunar missions at 66/67% we needed to reduce earths gravitational force to 3-4m/s^2 and then film it and then slow the footage down 66/67% in order to obtain the look..

but thats only for apollo 12-17.. apollo 11 was done at 50% so that means we had to change earths gravitational force down to 4-8m/s^2 and then film and then slow it down 50%..

reply to post by fenceSitter


I'm not a history buff so bare with me but from what i can remember, there was a cold war going on or some war not a huge guns and arrow one but a war between America and Russia, and Russia had managed to be the first with a satellite into space, the first man into space and were talking about going to the moon first, then there was the whole promise that Kennedy made to Americans that they would go to the moon not because it was easy but because its hard, which i think was Kennedy trying to say that 'Yeah they got someone into space but we're gonna shoot over that and go to the moon' something that reminds me of the whole MY DADS STRONGER THAN YOUR DAD or MY MANHOOD IS BIGGER THAN YOURS, that sort of one up thing.

America and Russia were going at it and trying to show that their way is better. So i think Kennedy or who ever was running the show behind the curtains wanted to make it seem like America was much better than Russia and could out shine them. it was a way to try and keep themselves as a super power.

reply to post by choos

so a smaller mobot was inside the command module that was sent to the to take photos from inside the CM.. which was in replacement of the astronauts.. so a 2000lbs mobot (guess) was to replace 3 guys weighing about 170lbs each which is about 510lbs all up..

which means you are still about 1500lbs overweight..

No, your estimates for the robot arm is way, way over weight. There is no need to have the entire body of the mobot fit inside the command module... only the arms, motorized, remotely controlled, camera arms!

not to mention it still wont fit through the hatch of the command module.. which would mean it would have to have had been placed inside the command module prior to finishing construction.. this leads to everyone building the command module, which would equate to few hundred people to actually be in on the secret..

No, you are trying to fit the entire mobot (from your image) into a command module is not going to happen. However, installing only the camera controlling arms could have easily been done in any one of the boilerplate block I command modules.

i dont know how a study plan for the LRV is meant to be about the mission plan for a mobot... but funny how this mission plan for your mobot to setup the lunar landing sites was written in october 1969 when the launch of apollo 11 was in july 1969.

Obviously you didn't read the NASA-CR-152720_RemotelyControlledLunarRover_1969.pdf See specifically Appendix A: References, because in the references section it reveals that most of the information in 152720 had already been reported on. There are 9 listed references. 5 of those 9 references were already published BEFORE Apollo 8.

oh dear.. looks like they had to use their time machine afterall.

No time machines here choos. The report did not magically appear on October 10, 1969. The ideas contained within the report had been around since at least 1959. And that brings me back to 1959 and Howard Hughes building his robots with TV eyes.

SayonaraJupiter
[

Obviously you didn't read the NASA-CR-152720_RemotelyControlledLunarRover_1969.pdf See specifically Appendix A: References, because in the references section it reveals that most of the information in 152720 had already been reported on. There are 9 listed references. 5 of those 9 references were already published BEFORE Apollo 8.

And you didn't pay too much attention to what the references are. One of the pre-Apollo 8 references is effectively a "How to plan a project for NASA" report.

The others are all desk studies examining design considerations of the proposed remote LRV technology and likely mission strategies. They are not descriptions of existing technology.

onebigmonkey
And you didn't pay too much attention to what the references are. One of the pre-Apollo 8 references is effectively a "How to plan a project for NASA" report.

The others are all desk studies examining design considerations of the proposed remote LRV technology and likely mission strategies. They are not descriptions of existing technology.

This proves that NASA, in 1969, was actually paying off JPL for padded reports, compilations of previous reports and for mission fantasies of non-existent technologies.

It's another dark vein of corruption running through the Apollo program. But it's even more valuable than that!