Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

combatmaster
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

It cannot be ignored. He basically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing could NOT have been faked using 1960's tech!

Why are you still arguing?

Some guy with a hat made a youtube video does not 'prove' a dang thing.

Science requires independent verification. No humans or monkeys have been outside low earth orbit using 1970's tech, 1980's tech, 1990's tech or 2000's tech. Four full decades of low-earth-orbit missions.

Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon are responsible for Apollo. The guy with the hat does not have independent data to compare with Apollo, he is simply taking the NASA data and apollogizing for it.

What the hell are you talking about?

The 'guy with the hat' explains why this could not have been faked.

Humans n monkeys, Nixon n howard hughes....... why are you derailing a simple fact!????

HomerinNC
Couldn't be just that: a SIMULATOR to train for the landing, right?
We use simulators everyday fr training, the airlines, the military, doctors, EMS etc use training simulators to prepare themselves for different scenarios.
When you moon hoax people realize there is too much proof to ever deny we went to the moon?
Maybe you'll all deny ignorance one day, at least one can hope

I find myself in the middle here. One day I sway one way and the next the other. Why, because your proof that we went is no better than the other side that we didn't. In fact it is the same proof argued from different view.

I mean both sides offer the same video footage and pictures as evidence and so forth and honestly you can watch it and change your mind from day to day.

In my mind there are things that keep popping back in my mind like seeing the fine dust kicked up or that his footprint lies in but that absolutely no dust or materials are kicked in up by the rockets on entry or leaving. Also no burn marks, in my mind I watch this footage and I can't reconcile this.

Also we have sent several probes into space but yet nasa never released data on the radiation belts. We know there are two well known belts but others report a third that is part man made, from all the nukes we exploded, and the left over from cme from sun. We know everything from satellites, to the probes and rovers have all measured the belts. Why, because if you want to get to moon and or space you have to go through them.

If we are to believe we have been to the moon then we must believe in God, why, because they say it was a miraculous event the astronauts got through the radiation belts. This is not to mention their suits then stopped zero cosmic radiation.

I guess today I am leaning away from your proof, what else you got. Hmmm hubble could take incredible photos let's point it at the moon, ah no we could see every little grain of sand and well that just doesn't work for nasa lol.

Maybe we will get lucky and China will verify for us.

The Bot

reply to post by dlbott
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont have alot of time but most of what you believe to be true is wrong. First you need to go here it will explain the 3rd belt it is not man made.But here is a good place to start ill come back and explain why the Van allen belts are not lethal to astronauts ill even look for the interview Van allen himself did if i can still find it.

www.nasa.gov...

dlbott

I mean both sides offer the same video footage and pictures as evidence and so forth and honestly you can watch it and change your mind from day to day.

In my mind there are things that keep popping back in my mind like seeing the fine dust kicked up or that his footprint lies in but that absolutely no dust or materials are kicked in up by the rockets on entry or leaving. Also no burn marks, in my mind I watch this footage and I can't reconcile this.

your brain is hardwired to recognise how things should act on the earths surface..

the moon is a completely different environment, obviously most people are not going reconcile if they dont understand the differences.

this is the issue all hoax believers have, they dont understand that the lunar surface is basically a vacuum they dont understand that the lunar surface has 1/6 of earths gravity and so when they see something that doesnt act like how they expect it to, the only logical explaination for them is movie magic. its down to education mostly.

Also we have sent several probes into space but yet nasa never released data on the radiation belts. We know there are two well known belts but others report a third that is part man made, from all the nukes we exploded, and the left over from cme from sun. We know everything from satellites, to the probes and rovers have all measured the belts. Why, because if you want to get to moon and or space you have to go through them.

you dont have to go through the middle/thickest part of the VA belts, there are thin areas and there are areas where there is nearly none.

If we are to believe we have been to the moon then we must believe in God, why, because they say it was a miraculous event the astronauts got through the radiation belts. This is not to mention their suits then stopped zero cosmic radiation.

umm not really.. they planned a trajectory to take them through the thinnest parts of the VA belt.. thats not miraculous.. cosmic radiation is will not affect you much if at all for short stays on the moon, you do not need to be protected from it for short stays..

the luckiest part was avoiding CME's.

I guess today I am leaning away from your proof, what else you got. Hmmm hubble could take incredible photos let's point it at the moon, ah no we could see every little grain of sand and well that just doesn't work for nasa lol.

Maybe we will get lucky and China will verify for us.

The Bot

hubble cannot resolve the lunar landing sites (mirror not large enough, orbits too far).. its physically impossible.. but if you want views of the lunar landing site go look up the LRO pictures.

dlbott


In my mind there are things that keep popping back in my mind like seeing the fine dust kicked up or that his footprint lies in but that absolutely no dust or materials are kicked in up by the rockets on entry or leaving. Also no burn marks, in my mind I watch this footage and I can't reconcile this.

This is not true. Videos taken on board for both landing and return to orbit show dust being kicked up by the engine. You can hear in Apollo 11's landing audio the words "picking up some dust". That dust also behaves in a way entirely and completely consistent with a low gravity zero atmosphere environment: it disappears horizontally sideways and stops as soon as the engines are turned off. It does not billow in a cloud. This is exactly what you also see in the Chang-e'3 landing video.

The absence of 'burn marks' is not strictly true, there are photos of scorching under the landers, but you would certainly not expect a blast crater, because if you were firing your rocket hard enough to create a crater underneath you then you are not going to land - you'll be heading back to space.

Also we have sent several probes into space but yet nasa never released data on the radiation belts. We know there are two well known belts but others report a third that is part man made, from all the nukes we exploded, and the left over from cme from sun. We know everything from satellites, to the probes and rovers have all measured the belts. Why, because if you want to get to moon and or space you have to go through them.

Again, not true. For a start, the Russians did the first research into the belts but the politics of the time meant that Van Allen got his work published first and got his name attached to them. Lots of research data from the time exist about them, and lots of research has been done since. The belts are a product of our magnetic field deflecting solar radiation, and no atmospheric tests have added to them (despite our best efforts, try googling project starfish. We knew we had to go through them, and that's why the trajectory of the spacecraft were designed to minimise exposure to them.

If we are to believe we have been to the moon then we must believe in God, why, because they say it was a miraculous event the astronauts got through the radiation belts. This is not to mention their suits then stopped zero cosmic radiation.

"They"? Who says this? People rolling their eyes and casting knowing winks?

It wasn't a miracle, it was careful planning and the willingness to take a calculated risk. The suits were designed to stop micro-meteorites and some radiation. Had there been a major CME things would have been different, but they had people monitoring this and had plans for taking shelter if it happened. No events of any significance happened. Despite many liars claiming there were many CMEs during the missions, they are manipulating statistics and making large assumptions that are not borne out by facts.

I guess today I am leaning away from your proof, what else you got.

How about pictures and videos of Earth that could only have been taken in space on specific times and dates that are verified by satellite photos? How about pictures of the moon taken on both in orbit and on the surface that show details that no-one knew about until they LRO started taking much more detailed photos. How about the lunar terminator always being exactly where it should be over the course of a mission in orbital photographs? How about photographs of stars taking in lunar orbit showing planets like Mercury and Jupiter exactly where they should be at the time and date specified? How about ultra-violet images of stars that can't be taken on Earth?

That's just my research, you can add all the rocks and other data that also support it, and the fact that every single piece of evidence from the missions matches exactly what is claimed in the official record and that every single piece of evidence matches up with every other piece: it is entirely and 100% consistent.

The only 'evidence' saying otherwise is produced by liars who cherry pick evidence, conveniently miss out important details, edit interviews to mislead people and who rely on gullible people not understanding what they are looking at. Not one piece of the material they produce ever stands up to proper scrutiny. All the time they are doing this they are generating advertising revenue on their websites and selling you their books and DVDs. Think about it.

Hmmm hubble could take incredible photos let's point it at the moon, ah no we could see every little grain of sand and well that just doesn't work for nasa lol.

Maybe we will get lucky and China will verify for us.

The Bot

Hubble could not, its imaging facilities are not designed to look at objects that close - it's like trying to read a book with the wrong glasses on (and trust me I know about this one). It has taken images of the moon, but they are nothing like as zoomed in as people think they should be. The LRO is the best view of the moon we have from orbit, and photographs taken by it show not just Apollo hardware and evidence of human activity, but rocks and craters in exactly the same places they are in Apollo photographs and video.

combatmaster
The 'guy with the hat' explains why this could not have been faked.

The 'guy with the hat' is a commentator/spectator he is not even a participant in the ground control of Apollo and he's certainly not an astronaut.

Both you and I, and everyone posting to this thread, we all belong in that same category. Even Walter Cronkite belongs to this category. Arthur C. Clarke. And Jules Bergman.... and all the rest. Andrew Chaikan. Phil Plait. Jay Windley. Bart Sibrel. Bill Kaysing. Ralph Rene. Jack White. AULIS. CLAVIUS. JREF. David Percy. Luna Cognita. MythBusters... Richard Hoagland, Jim Oberg and even Jarrah White!

We are all spectators to the spectacle of Nixon's Apollo.

Seriously, you guys (the Apollo Defense Committee) have picked up 'man with a hat' and you seem to think this guy is the ultimate savior or something!

reply to post by onebigmonkey

How about pictures and videos of Earth that could only have been taken in space on specific times and dates that are verified by satellite photos?

Cherry picking photographic evidence is a no-no, is it not? I have been called a cherry-picker in this thread dozens of times. Welcome to the club, OBMonkey, so how do those cherries taste, anyway? Are they bitter or are they sweet?

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Here are some CBS special effects technicians working on a simulated moonscape. This is two screenshots taken from the Apollo 10 mission. All I did was take 2 screenshots from a youtube video and edited the graphics to be side by side... to illustrate... what the set looked like with the room lights on... and then they turned off the room lights and used a single source of lighting... for the simulated moonscape.



I know that the Apollo Defenders love youtube videos so I am using youtube as my primary source material. If you do a google search on CBS Apollo 10 you should be able to find a series of videos posted by some anonymous youtube user.

The Apollo Defense Squad has argued that youtube videos are "proof" of Apollo. Now I will do the same thing and use a youtube video to "prove" that CBS was involved in the Apollo Hoax. When I say Apollo Hoax, I really mean Nixon's Apollo.

Oh look what I found.

Francis J. Shakespeare (born April 9, 1925 in New York City) is a former American diplomat and media executive. He was the president of CBS Television before entering public service. "

Shakespeare was president of CBS Television in New York from 1950 to 1969[1] when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon as director of the United States Information Agency.[3] He returned to the private sector in 1973, and became an executive vice president of Westinghouse in New York. In 1975, he became vice chairman of RKO General. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by dragonridr

I dont have alot of time but most of what you believe to be true is wrong.

Spoken like a true believer of the Apollo Scriptures! Preach It, Brother, Preach!!!

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax

Apollo 10 : Launch date May 18, 1969, 16:49:00 UTC. The Apollo 10 launch date matches up with one of the critical dates in the Charles Manson narrative.

Look into these eyes and tell me what you see. Frank Borman was in Russia in June of 1969.

Charles Manson

was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.

On May 18, 1969, Terry Melcher visited Spahn Ranch to hear Manson and the women sing. Melcher arranged a subsequent visit, not long thereafter, on which he brought a friend who possessed a mobile recording unit; but he himself did not record the group.

reply to post by DJW001

That he passed through the ERBs with no ill effects on Apollo 12? I agree, it is certainly more useful than the bogus measurements made by Pokrovsky. I'm glad you're not buying that rubbish anymore. Now... when are you going to provide solid evidence that this "Richard Nixon" of yours actually existed?

I never bought that rubbish. I don't even have a receipt on the rubbish!

Are you suggesting that Richard Nixon never existed? What kind of dope are you smoking? I have smoked some good dope but never, ever in my mind, thought that Richard Nixon never existed!!

Wow, you Apollo Defenders are really losing touch with reality!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And once again we get a line of

SayonaraJupiter
Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax

Apollo 10 : Launch date May 18, 1969, 16:49:00 UTC. The Apollo 10 launch date matches up with one of the critical dates in the Charles Manson narrative.

Look into these eyes and tell me what you see. Frank Borman was in Russia in June of 1969.

Charles Manson

was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.

On May 18, 1969, Terry Melcher visited Spahn Ranch to hear Manson and the women sing. Melcher arranged a subsequent visit, not long thereafter, on which he brought a friend who possessed a mobile recording unit; but he himself did not record the group.

SayonaraJupiter

The 'guy with the hat' is a commentator/spectator he is not even a participant in the ground control of Apollo and he's certainly not an astronaut.

Both you and I, and everyone posting to this thread, we all belong in that same category. Even Walter Cronkite belongs to this category. Arthur C. Clarke. And Jules Bergman.... and all the rest. Andrew Chaikan. Phil Plait. Jay Windley. Bart Sibrel. Bill Kaysing. Ralph Rene. Jack White. AULIS. CLAVIUS. JREF. David Percy. Luna Cognita. MythBusters... Richard Hoagland, Jim Oberg and even Jarrah White!

We are all spectators to the spectacle of Nixon's Apollo.

Seriously, you guys (the Apollo Defense Committee) have picked up 'man with a hat' and you seem to think this guy is the ultimate savior or something!

not an ultimate saviour but he makes a good point does he not??

lets see now, this guys says he has been in the film business for a long time and says we didnt have the technology to fake it, we obviously didnt have the technology to edit dynamic visor reflections..

and your rebuttal is "hat guy is wrong, dont listen to him" and your evidence to prove it is your self inflated sense of "authority" like we were meant to listen to you and obey...

SayonaraJupiter

Cherry picking photographic evidence is a no-no, is it not? I have been called a cherry-picker in this thread dozens of times. Welcome to the club, OBMonkey, so how do those cherries taste, anyway? Are they bitter or are they sweet?

woah woah woah.. who are you to talk about cherry picking photographic evidence???

isnt it you who is claiming there are no A12 candid photos to prove they were inside the CM in cis-lunar space??

isnt it you who concedes the fact that A11 and A13 has such photos??

isnt it you who ignores A12 16mm footage of astronauts in the CM??

also OBmonkey isnt cherry picking.. he is presenting evidence to prove man has landed on the moon.. you havent even shown us how your theories or whatever are meant to prove they didnt you have only shown is that the omnipotent organisation which was able to fake the moon landing perfectly and keep it secret for over 40 years cant even run its own organisation properly..

dragonridr

I dont have alot of time

It's interesting you say this ... 'I don't have alot (sic) of time'

Because the alleged Apollo astronauts didn't have a lot of time either to conduct their extremely important experiments.

Yet....

They found the time to set up a flag on EVERY mission. Yes, EVERY mission.

In total, one full hour of science time was replaced with setting up SIX flags. Not one, not two, SIX.

I think i'll leave it at that.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Wow... you seem to have convinced yourself.

Amazing!

The people that think the moon landing was faked seem to forget that the moon is still within earth's orbit. All it would take is simple mathematics to figure out the exact formula needed to reach the moon in the way NASA did in the 60s.



Any planet or moon has an Escape Velocity. A mass at the surface travelling at this speed or greater will go infinitely far – gravity will never be able to pull it back.

This post is about escape velocity, including the formula for computing it.

To compute escape velocity, we use energy concepts, specifically kinetic and potential energy. As we learn in high school physics, if we have a mass m, it has a weight at the Earth’s surface equal to mg, where g is the gravitational acceleration constant for Earth ( 9.8 meters / sec2 in MKS units). If we lift the mass a distance h, it gains potential energy in the amount mg×h . If we then drop it, it begins loosing potential energy, but the decrease in potential energy is converted to kinetic energy 1/2mv2. When it reaches the starting point, the potential energy is zero, and all of the energy is kinetic, so that

12 mv20=mgh(1)
Solving for v0,

v0=2gh−−−√(2)
The exchange also works in reverse: if we toss it upwards at speed v0, it will reach height h, at which point the kinetic energy is zero.

For escape velocity, we do a similar calculation, but as we move away from the Earth, g is not a constant. As the law of gravity tells us, g decreases as the inverse square of distance from Earth’s center, so g varies as

g=g0 (rR0)2




A similar formula can be used to land on the moon. In fact its quite easy if you have a rocket big enough. Understanding who built the Saturn V adds even more credibility. You should all know Wernher von Braun. The guy who invented the rocket engine that we still use today?

ppk55

dragonridr

I dont have alot of time

It's interesting you say this ... 'I don't have alot (sic) of time'

Because the alleged Apollo astronauts didn't have a lot of time either to conduct their extremely important experiments.

Yet....

They found the time to set up a flag on EVERY mission. Yes, EVERY mission.

In total, one full hour of science time was replaced with setting up SIX flags. Not one, not two, SIX.

I think i'll leave it at that.

edit on 20-12-2013 by ppk55 because: removed 'and'

well its customary to plant a flag on new soil people have been doing it for centuries,In fact Christopher columbus did as well. And if you go to the top of mount everest youll see a whole bunch of flags. So it shouldnt surprise you they did it on the moon. And ill give you a heads up theyll do it on mars too. And go look at the Jade Rabbit photos its no coincidence they took a photo showing the chinese flag.

So i guess what im wondering is what is the point exactly?

reply to post by markmanning303


Those people are ignorant! They wont listen.... they just like to believe that its impossible!