Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Also to be 'revealed': 1) The Scooby-Doo Hoax - It's true, dogs can't actually talk
2) The Colbert Conundrum - It's not actually a news program
3) The Obama Triangle - It's transparent, and it;s actually a rhomboid !
4) The Kerry/Kardashian Quandry - Solved! Kim has slighty more air in her head than
kerry, but his blunt shape is more aerodynamic !
5) The 'real' initiative - Pumping enough real-housewives crap into space will cause actual
'advanced' races to come here an exterminate us, just to make
the whining noises in they're heads stop!


There you have it. All the news that's fit to print.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The boys at JPL would have killed for your mobot arm.The robotic arm they envisioned was beyond their scope at the time.

Mate I thought you were trying to explain to me earlier that JPL were the "big boys". Don't you think the "big boys" ever saw one of HH's mobots? The Mobot was no secret, Hughes even made publicity out of it, in 1959!

Here's that article I posted earlier, notice the date, April of 1959. Are you admitting the JPL was too stupid to look at the Mobot design in the newspaper and figure out how to build a remote controlled arm, with a camera mount, equipped with a Hasselblad camera?

Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The boys at JPL would have killed for your mobot arm.The robotic arm they envisioned was beyond their scope at the time.

Mate I thought you were trying to explain to me earlier that JPL were the "big boys". Don't you think the "big boys" ever saw one of HH's mobots? The Mobot was no secret, Hughes even made publicity out of it, in 1959!

Here's that article I posted earlier, notice the date, April of 1959. Are you admitting the JPL was too stupid to look at the Mobot design in the newspaper and figure out how to build a remote controlled arm, with a camera mount, equipped with a Hasselblad camera?

Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

An interesting quote in the article:

"Gathering samples on the moon while scientists controlling it relaxed in the relative comfort of a rocket ship"

Kind of suggests that the 'remote' bit actually means either "attached by wires" and/or "not very far from a person".

Hearsay testimony with no corroboration.

onebigmonkey

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The boys at JPL would have killed for your mobot arm.The robotic arm they envisioned was beyond their scope at the time.

Mate I thought you were trying to explain to me earlier that JPL were the "big boys". Don't you think the "big boys" ever saw one of HH's mobots? The Mobot was no secret, Hughes even made publicity out of it, in 1959!

Here's that article I posted earlier, notice the date, April of 1959. Are you admitting the JPL was too stupid to look at the Mobot design in the newspaper and figure out how to build a remote controlled arm, with a camera mount, equipped with a Hasselblad camera?

Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

An interesting quote in the article:

"Gathering samples on the moon while scientists controlling it relaxed in the relative comfort of a rocket ship"

Kind of suggests that the 'remote' bit actually means either "attached by wires" and/or "not very far from a person".

Hearsay testimony with no corroboration.

Oh it was definitely early tech the reason it didnt go any where it was just impractical. See what he neglected to tell you in his mobot theory is the arm only moved up and down and side to side it was literally useless. Then it required an umbilical cord to supply its power and this was connected to a computer which took up a big room! the control board was then attached to the computer to give it commands. To get this whole set up to the moon would have taken about 10 launches not to mention time to assemble it would have taken most of the missions. So this means we would have went to the moon to put together a mobot to explore the moon. Which begs the question while you're there why dont you just explore the moon? But whats worse is just what it looked like! It looks like Doctor Octopus had a job before becoming a supervillain,I suspect any minute to see the national guard and army fighting this thing in a bad sci fi movie.Well since once again Senora Jupiter never does his own homework and i requested a picture several times i might add.Well i suspect there was a reason he didnt want you to see this thing which is why i wanted him to post it.

Well here is the mobot ladies and gentleman also note it had to use AC power because they didnt have DC actuators strong enough .

dragonridr

See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I agree, and Stanislav Pokrovsky PhD does as well in regards to the Apollo 11 Saturn V.
He claims Apollo 11 was underpowered to reach the moon.

Interesting read.

www.aulis.com...

reply to post by ppk55

I agree, and Stanislav Pokrovsky PhD does as well in regards to the Apollo 11 Saturn V.
He claims Apollo 11 was underpowered to reach the moon.

Pokrovsky slowed films of the launch down by 50%, then claimed the Saturn V was accelerating too slowly! He is either a moron or a very bad liar.

ppk55

dragonridr

See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I agree, and Stanislav Pokrovsky PhD does as well in regards to the Apollo 11 Saturn V.
He claims Apollo 11 was underpowered to reach the moon.

Interesting read.

www.aulis.com...

It is interesting, mostly for the massive number of assumptions the author (whoever he is) makes. He doesn't seem to take accounr of the reduced mass of the rocket as it burns fuel, and doesn't seem to know what the long pointy thing on tbe nose of the CSM is.

The comments after are also interesting, as it reiterates the nonsense about the image of earth taped to a window.

This ridiculous and has been debunked thoroughly, not keast by me showing tbat the image in the window contains a storm only visible on launch day on a whole esrth image you just can't get from LEO.

You also get the feeling tnat they think robots snd tne related equipment and power sources don't weigh anything, but astronauts snd food would have been crippingly heavy.

Would this alleged phd have got onto aulis if he had proven the saturn v was genuinely taking people to orbit? No, I think not.

onebigmonkey

ppk55

dragonridr

See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I agree, and Stanislav Pokrovsky PhD does as well in regards to the Apollo 11 Saturn V.
He claims Apollo 11 was underpowered to reach the moon.

Interesting read.

www.aulis.com...

It is interesting, mostly for the massive number of assumptions the author (whoever he is) makes. He doesn't seem to take accounr of the reduced mass of the rocket as it burns fuel, and doesn't seem to know what the long pointy thing on tbe nose of the CSM is.

The comments after are also interesting, as it reiterates the nonsense about the image of earth taped to a window.

This ridiculous and has been debunked thoroughly, not keast by me showing tbat the image in the window contains a storm only visible on launch day on a whole esrth image you just can't get from LEO.

You also get the feeling tnat they think robots snd tne related equipment and power sources don't weigh anything, but astronauts snd food would have been crippingly heavy.

Would this alleged phd have got onto aulis if he had proven the saturn v was genuinely taking people to orbit? No, I think not.

Im laughing at figuring out the speed by the exhaust. The exhaust is determined by atmospheric temprature shape of the exhaust and the mixture in the combustion chamber and what fuel is used. They have to test rockets to determine thrust by mounting them in a rig. But this guy can look at the exhaust wow hes good funniest point is apparently hes unaware if he wants the speed all he has to do is watch a launch NASA gave out speed readings and boy is he off.

Decided to add to this just for the this is really cool category. Turns out the saturn 5 was so effective that now they have reassembled it and started testing it again. Apparently its thrust ratio hasnt been repeated since and they are testing it again to take us to mars! Warner Von Braun would be proud hes still in rockets to this day!

I posted from my tablet yesterday, hence the bad spelling and missing words. I also tried posting this but it failed on me:

Pokrovsky claims to have a PhD but we have no evidence for it, and the 'paper' we are given is not in a refereed journal, so as authoritative as it comes across it hasn't been verified. Two papers are given at the Aulis site and referred to as if they are completely different entities, but one is a re-write of the other (he says so in the 2nd paper).

He is cited as being the General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK", but you will find no reference on the internet to that company other than on websites stroking his ego. His basic premise (and he says so in his paper) is that the Saturn V is not capable, and he sets out to prove it.

He's also been peddling his 'measure things from a TV screen' nonsense for some time, and real rocket scientists aren't as impressed by him. You can read JayUtah's views here:

apollohoax.proboards.com...

If people disagree with JU's arguments, then they should present their maths.

I have a general rule of thumb. If you research a theory or an individual and the only references you get to them are on conspiracy sites, you can pretty much guarantee that it is BS. Google this guy's name and you get the apollohoax site dismantling his arguments and a whole bunch of conspiracy sites who like him.

Funny how places that usually dismiss 'mainstream science' and distrust the scientific establishment will latch on like a hungry leech to someone with 'PhD' after their name because it lends credibility to their argument. Well, I have that too, and my website proves we went to the moon. Who you gonna call?

onebigmonkey
I posted from my tablet yesterday, hence the bad spelling and missing words. I also tried posting this but it failed on me:

Pokrovsky claims to have a PhD but we have no evidence for it, and the 'paper' we are given is not in a refereed journal, so as authoritative as it comes across it hasn't been verified. Two papers are given at the Aulis site and referred to as if they are completely different entities, but one is a re-write of the other (he says so in the 2nd paper).

He is cited as being the General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK", but you will find no reference on the internet to that company other than on websites stroking his ego. His basic premise (and he says so in his paper) is that the Saturn V is not capable, and he sets out to prove it.

He's also been peddling his 'measure things from a TV screen' nonsense for some time, and real rocket scientists aren't as impressed by him. You can read JayUtah's views here:

apollohoax.proboards.com...

If people disagree with JU's arguments, then they should present their maths.

I have a general rule of thumb. If you research a theory or an individual and the only references you get to them are on conspiracy sites, you can pretty much guarantee that it is BS. Google this guy's name and you get the apollohoax site dismantling his arguments and a whole bunch of conspiracy sites who like him.

Funny how places that usually dismiss 'mainstream science' and distrust the scientific establishment will latch on like a hungry leech to someone with 'PhD' after their name because it lends credibility to their argument. Well, I have that too, and my website proves we went to the moon. Who you gonna call?

well i relooked at it and im not sure he has a PHD i noticed hes examining pictures trying to calculate bow shock from below the object as they say WTF? Ive read through his description 3 times now and wow im thinking we have a real language barrier going on here.

Actually checking the stats on the saturn 5 you cant help but be impressed. Imagine a rocket engine that produces 1.5 million pounds of thrust each. With Kerosene and liquid oxygen until i looked i assumed it was oxygen and hydrogen like the shuttle. And the turbo dumped 3 tons of propellant into the combustion chamber every second. And get this at launch it contained 5.6 million pounds of propellant. Now the method to my madness notice the propellant loss 3 tons per second i kept looking at the russians equations but no where can i find where he calculated that kinda loss in weight! Also i think he is unaware of the second stage rocket which is the one that actually gets the speed to get into orbit. The 3rd phase was to send it to the moon. Seems to have skipped things totally he just took launch weight and just moved on!

reply to post by onebigmonkey

If people disagree with JU's arguments, then they should present their maths.

Can the ubermonkey Jay Utah use math to prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space during the Apollo 12 mission? It's a lot of hocus pocus if you ask me. Jay relies on NASA source material, he picks and chooses his source material, and fact remains that the telemetry tapes are gone forever. Who you gonna call now?

Mythbusters? Phil Plait?

Can you prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space? No, you can't. Stop your posturing and prove that!

What is your prime piece of evidence? Pete's personal testimony? Or do you have hard proof?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

If people disagree with JU's arguments, then they should present their maths.

Can the ubermonkey Jay Utah use math to prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space during the Apollo 12 mission? It's a lot of hocus pocus if you ask me. Jay relies on NASA source material, he picks and chooses his source material, and fact remains that the telemetry tapes are gone forever. Who you gonna call now?

Mythbusters? Phil Plait?

Can you prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space? No, you can't. Stop your posturing and prove that!

What is your prime piece of evidence? Pete's personal testimony? Or do you have hard proof?

Well im sorry you feel that way but unfortunately you presented no proof therefore your entire statement is just conjecture. See somewhere in your little diatribe there you are supposed to tell us why you dont agree. Just telling us you think its wrong and not explaining why does nothing for the topic does it?

Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I know weight has been a sensitive issue for you Apollo Defenders. I also know that the Hasseblad camera weights would not have jeopardized the mission but the cameras, THE EVIDENCE, of fraud was conveniently and unceremoniously dumped off on the lunar surface... all of them... Oh no. All except one.

Jim Irwin's Hasselbad malfunctioned at Dune Crater. It was brought back to Earth. Now nobody can find it.

When Irwin brought back his Hasselbad it proved that weight was not a serious consideration for dumping all those cameras at the landing sites.... they had to dump the cameras on the "moon" because they were EVIDENCE that could lead to the discovery of the Howard Hughes operation.

It's now 2013 the Arizona State University is erasing the cross-hairs from Apollo images with NASA's OK.

It's now 2013 there are Keep Out Zones at the Apollo landing sites. Why?

Because if somebody looked closely at the Apollo landing sites they would not find any Hasselblad cameras.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

reply to post by dragonridr


If you don't have any proof... well... why don't you just sit out this hand. This is high stakes poker. If you can't make the ante you better sit out.

SayonaraJupiter


Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I know weight has been a sensitive issue for you Apollo Defenders. I also know that the Hasseblad camera weights would not have jeopardized the mission but the cameras, THE EVIDENCE, of fraud was conveniently and unceremoniously dumped off on the lunar surface... all of them... Oh no. All except one.

Jim Irwin's Hasselbad malfunctioned at Dune Crater. It was brought back to Earth. Now nobody can find it.

When Irwin brought back his Hasselbad it proved that weight was not a serious consideration for dumping all those cameras at the landing sites.... they had to dump the cameras on the "moon" because they were EVIDENCE that could lead to the discovery of the Howard Hughes operation.

It's now 2013 the Arizona State University is erasing the cross-hairs from Apollo images with NASA's OK.

It's now 2013 there are Keep Out Zones at the Apollo landing sites. Why?

Because if somebody looked closely at the Apollo landing sites they would not find any Hasselblad cameras.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

Ok what happens in your story next i do hope it has aliens i do so love science fiction! Hey i got an idea lets throw in some super secret organization too. No wait better idea the vatican im sure we can tie them in to your story. Lets see Kennedy was roman catholic so when he started the idea od going to the moon it was actually at the request of the vatican.And this is to cover up the fact that they know aliens exist and have been fighting a secret war. They covered it up for centuries by calling them demons see now we got a real story going.

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter


Yeah the real problem with that was weight trying to get a mobot on the moon when it was the size of a forklift and weighed as much. See rockets have weight limits you want to stay below funny huh?

I know weight has been a sensitive issue for you Apollo Defenders. I also know that the Hasseblad camera weights would not have jeopardized the mission but the cameras, THE EVIDENCE, of fraud was conveniently and unceremoniously dumped off on the lunar surface... all of them... Oh no. All except one.

Jim Irwin's Hasselbad malfunctioned at Dune Crater. It was brought back to Earth. Now nobody can find it.

When Irwin brought back his Hasselbad it proved that weight was not a serious consideration for dumping all those cameras at the landing sites.... they had to dump the cameras on the "moon" because they were EVIDENCE that could lead to the discovery of the Howard Hughes operation.

It's now 2013 the Arizona State University is erasing the cross-hairs from Apollo images with NASA's OK.

It's now 2013 there are Keep Out Zones at the Apollo landing sites. Why?

Because if somebody looked closely at the Apollo landing sites they would not find any Hasselblad cameras.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

Ok what happens in your story next i do hope it has aliens i do so love science fiction! Hey i got an idea lets throw in some super secret organization too. No wait better idea the vatican im sure we can tie them in to your story. Lets see Kennedy was roman catholic so when he started the idea of going to the moon it was actually at the request of the vatican.And this is to cover up the fact that they know aliens exist and have been fighting a secret war. They covered it up for centuries by calling them demons see now we got a real story going.

reply to post by dragonridr

Ok what happens in your story next i do hope it has aliens i do so love science fiction!

It's funny that you would mention science fiction because that's my favorite quote from Charles Bolden...
he's gonna turn science fiction into science fact!

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok what happens in your story next i do hope it has aliens i do so love science fiction!

It's funny that you would mention science fiction because that's my favorite quote from Charles Bolden...
he's gonna turn science fiction into science fact!

You know ive come to the conclusion english is a second language for you isnt it? Because that statement means exactly opposite what you think it does.You have used it throughout this thread without understanding what he meant. All scientists turn science fiction into science fact. In fact we use something from Star Trek every day they are called cell phones credit to Gene Rodenbury. See in order to invent something we first have to imagine it. Going to the moon id say HG Wells idea and we did it see how it works.

Me personally i hope it continues i really want a transporter bad i hate plane flights i always end up nex to the fat guy that takes up half my seat.

SayonaraJupiter

I know weight has been a sensitive issue for you Apollo Defenders. I also know that the Hasseblad camera weights would not have jeopardized the mission but the cameras, THE EVIDENCE, of fraud was conveniently and unceremoniously dumped off on the lunar surface... all of them... Oh no. All except one.

what do you expect to learn from cameras when cameras record everything on film and the film has been returned??

also why are you comparing the mass of several cameras and several pounds of lunar rocks with the mass of a mobot which would be over a tonne?

Jim Irwin's Hasselbad malfunctioned at Dune Crater. It was brought back to Earth. Now nobody can find it.

When Irwin brought back his Hasselbad it proved that weight was not a serious consideration for dumping all those cameras at the landing sites.... they had to dump the cameras on the "moon" because they were EVIDENCE that could lead to the discovery of the Howard Hughes operation.

its a precaution, the more fuel you save the more you leave yourself for when something goes wrong.. but ofcourse NASA is not incompetent at all, they would never make a mistake so there is absolutely no need for such precautions..

It's now 2013 the Arizona State University is erasing the cross-hairs from Apollo images with NASA's OK.

even though millions of pre-edited images are kept privately.. im sure NASA will somehow erase those images.. because NASA is omnipotent..

It's now 2013 there are Keep Out Zones at the Apollo landing sites. Why?

to shoot down satellites/probes that try to reach the moon with communication lasers, like what they did to chandrayaan and chang'e 3.. oh wait..

Because if somebody looked closely at the Apollo landing sites they would not find any Hasselblad cameras.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

because NASA will shoot at any satellite/probe/rover that attempts to land on the moon with their communication laser right??

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I know weight has been a sensitive issue for you Apollo Defenders. I also know that the Hasseblad camera weights would not have jeopardized the mission but the cameras, THE EVIDENCE, of fraud was conveniently and unceremoniously dumped off on the lunar surface... all of them... Oh no. All except one.

what do you expect to learn from cameras when cameras record everything on film and the film has been returned??

also why are you comparing the mass of several cameras and several pounds of lunar rocks with the mass of a mobot which would be over a tonne?

Jim Irwin's Hasselbad malfunctioned at Dune Crater. It was brought back to Earth. Now nobody can find it.

When Irwin brought back his Hasselbad it proved that weight was not a serious consideration for dumping all those cameras at the landing sites.... they had to dump the cameras on the "moon" because they were EVIDENCE that could lead to the discovery of the Howard Hughes operation.

its a precaution, the more fuel you save the more you leave yourself for when something goes wrong.. but ofcourse NASA is not incompetent at all, they would never make a mistake so there is absolutely no need for such precautions..

It's now 2013 the Arizona State University is erasing the cross-hairs from Apollo images with NASA's OK.

even though millions of pre-edited images are kept privately.. im sure NASA will somehow erase those images.. because NASA is omnipotent..

It's now 2013 there are Keep Out Zones at the Apollo landing sites. Why?

to shoot down satellites/probes that try to reach the moon with communication lasers, like what they did to chandrayaan and chang'e 3.. oh wait..

Because if somebody looked closely at the Apollo landing sites they would not find any Hasselblad cameras.

That's my story. I'm sticking to it.

because NASA will shoot at any satellite/probe/rover that attempts to land on the moon with their communication laser right??

Im beginning to believe he thinks hasselblad cameras have flash drives. So in his warped view they left the cameras on the moon so we couldnt look at the original pictures not realizing the film is the original picture.