Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1

How ironic - you say it acts similar to a bag which has strings attached!!

Why do you think parachutes have strings, anyway?

you dont understand my point do you??

parachutes have strings attached in order to ensure the parachute "catches" air and funnels the air towards the centre.. sort of "inflating" the parachute..

a plastic bag will do something similar.. it will "catch" air inside the bag which will inflate the bag..

turbonium1
Your last clip has more examples of it..

At 0:56, an astronaut goes out of view to the right. The camera pans off a bit to the right, at 0:57. The camera keeps panning and matches all of his moves.

This is such a joke, isn't it?

A delay of just two seconds can't work out here. It's more than two seconds delay, of course.

At 0:56, he goes off screen to the right. A 2 second delay means he would see it at 0:58 in 'real time'. So after another 2 second delay the camera pans...at 0:60.

He panned one second later, which is impossible.

To follow the astronaut step by step with several more camera pans....is even more absurd.

What you see is the astronaut move, then the camera, then the astronaut, then the camera. This is entirely consistent with the camera operator responding to events he sees on a screen transmitted from the moon. You only find it suspicious because you find it suspicious.

The two thrown objects behave perfectly consistently with a low gravity zero atmosphere environment.

All you need to do to prove this to yourself is to stop watching low grade youtube videos and get yourself a plastic bag and a stick. Why aren't you doing this?

turbonium1

The pan occurs when the first bag is thrown, as you'll see in this clip...

I thought the pan was done during the other throw, but they do pan it, which is the point being made here.

So how can they pan it from Earth, as it actually happens on the moon?? It can't. That pan is impossible because of the delay.

your point is being made to an entirely different throw and object.. im not even sure that was a bag?? it looked as though it bounced when it landed..

have you wondered why ive been using the bag throw/fling (second throw in your clip)??

here's something.....

The word: as·tro·naut was created in about the 1920's

But when you look at it you realize it's telling us something:

Astro + Naut

or

Astro + "Not!"

They did "not" go astro. Even the word has a secret message encoded in it as you can clearly see. It's telling us "we did Not actually go to the moon fyi"

spartacus699
here's something.....

The word: as·tro·naut was created in about the 1920's

But when you look at it you realize it's telling us something:

Astro + Naut

or

Astro + "Not!"

They did "not" go astro. Even the word has a secret message encoded in it as you can clearly see. It's telling us "we did Not actually go to the moon fyi"

And when you actually look at the etymology of the word you might learn something.

The 'naut' part means sailor. See if you can work out what the 'astro' bit means.

spartacus699
here's something.....

The word: as·tro·naut was created in about the 1920's

But when you look at it you realize it's telling us something:

Astro + Naut

or

Astro + "Not!"

They did "not" go astro. Even the word has a secret message encoded in it as you can clearly see. It's telling us "we did Not actually go to the moon fyi"

The term came about because balloonists were called aeronauts (sailors of the air) seeing as they navigated the skies. It was changed to astronaut (sailor of stars) to differentiate you were sailing the heavens instead of the sky. The term Naut is the same as nautical meaning related to sailing and navigation. Just so you know Soviets used the term cosmonaut meaning sailor of the universe.

onebigmonkey

spartacus699
here's something.....

The word: as·tro·naut was created in about the 1920's

But when you look at it you realize it's telling us something:

Astro + Naut

or

Astro + "Not!"

They did "not" go astro. Even the word has a secret message encoded in it as you can clearly see. It's telling us "we did Not actually go to the moon fyi"

And when you actually look at the etymology of the word you might learn something.

The 'naut' part means sailor. See if you can work out what the 'astro' bit means.

naut

dragonridr

spartacus699
here's something.....

The word: as·tro·naut was created in about the 1920's

But when you look at it you realize it's telling us something:

Astro + Naut

or

Astro + "Not!"

They did "not" go astro. Even the word has a secret message encoded in it as you can clearly see. It's telling us "we did Not actually go to the moon fyi"

The term came about because balloonists were called aeronauts (sailors of the air) seeing as they navigated the skies. It was changed to astronaut (sailor of stars) to differentiate you were sailing the heavens instead of the sky. The term Naut is the same as nautical meaning related to sailing and navigation. Just so you know Soviets used the term cosmonaut meaning sailor of the universe.

oh sure that's what they'd love you to believe

onebigmonkey

turbonium1
Your last clip has more examples of it..

At 0:56, an astronaut goes out of view to the right. The camera pans off a bit to the right, at 0:57. The camera keeps panning and matches all of his moves.

This is such a joke, isn't it?

A delay of just two seconds can't work out here. It's more than two seconds delay, of course.

At 0:56, he goes off screen to the right. A 2 second delay means he would see it at 0:58 in 'real time'. So after another 2 second delay the camera pans...at 0:60.

He panned one second later, which is impossible.

To follow the astronaut step by step with several more camera pans....is even more absurd.

What you see is the astronaut move, then the camera, then the astronaut, then the camera. This is entirely consistent with the camera operator responding to events he sees on a screen transmitted from the moon. You only find it suspicious because you find it suspicious.

A delay of barely one second is impossible, that's beyond dispute.

You can call it being 'suspicious', if that's comforting to you.

The truth is often too hard to deal with, for many Apollo-ites.

Gibborium


There is a delay of 1.3 seconds for communications between the Earth and the Moon. This would mean that the remote camera operator had to move the camera 1.3 seconds before the event to happen in order for the timing to match.

The 1.3 seconds is not the total delay, it is merely the time it takes an audio signal to go from the moon to the Earth (or the opposite). A calculation of lightseconds at the distance between the two bodies. The signal goes through processing, before it's heard at GC. So the delay is 2-3 seconds, at least, or longer depending on Earth's atmospheric conditions at the time, and so on.

It doesn't even matter if it was 1.3 seconds, because the audio is not going to be 'OK, Houston, I'm going to take 4 steps to the right in 3 seconds. Then I won't move for 2 minutes, and then I'll take 6 steps to the left. Got that?'

I don't recall any such dialogue, do you?

A 1 second delay won't work

Gibborium

Of course, in your scenario, the operator could be right there on the Moon with the astronauts, so no delay would occur. But this is not likely because there was only enough room for three astronauts in the CSM and only two went down to the Moon's surface.

It is not a scenario at all.

The only explanation for this is... it was filmed on Earth.

So we've seen video clips with several impossible pans.

Let's add an impossible audio clip..

www.youtube.com...

Houston wants the astronaut to get a certain rock...

At 14:32, the astronaut says "This one right here?"

Houston answers "Yes, that's it." less than a second later.

At 14:36, it's repeated.

We know it cannot be a genuine event - There is no audio delay.

There must be an audio delay of 1.3 seconds, at very least. And a longer delay in the video.

Apollo is clearly a hoax, and this alone proves it.

reply to post by turbonium1


ridiculous claim and no understanding of delay..

the reason for why there is no delay in response is because NASA is responding to the voice of the astronaut..

ie.. the voice of the astronaut asking "this one right here?" has already taken one second to reach houston, and houston is responding to it immediately, which is what we hear.. houston's response will then take another second to go back to the atronaut..

have you wondered why the astronaut asks the same question twice?? because he was waiting for the answer which took a while to get back to him, he got silence for over 2 seconds so he probably thought his question wasnt heard..

so effectively that clip proves there was a delay just you not understanding what is happening.

turbonium1
So we've seen video clips with several impossible pans.

Let's add an impossible audio clip..
www.youtube.com...

Houston wants the astronaut to get a certain rock...
At 14:32, the astronaut says "This one right here?"
Houston answers "Yes, that's it." less than a second later.

At 14:36, it's repeated.
We know it cannot be a genuine event - There is no audio delay.
There must be an audio delay of 1.3 seconds, at very least. And a longer delay in the video.

Apollo is clearly a hoax, and this alone proves it.

The reason there is no delay at one end on that recording is obvious if you just use some logic and common sense.

The recording is being done at mission control. That means the recording is capturing the astronaut's question as it is received by mission control, and is also capturing the immediate response from the controller . The response would be immediate because BOTH the question and the response were recorded at mission control).

Think of it for a minute. If you were receiving a question ask by someone from 250,000 miles away, you would give a response immediately after receiving/hearing the question. That's exactly what the controller did, and that's what this recording captured.

The fact that the astronaut repeated the question after a slight pause DOES indicate that there is a time delay, because the mission controller's answer had not yet arrived on the Moon when the astronaut repeated the question.

reply to post by turbonium1


Dear god you really are as dumb as a box of rocks aren't you?

choos

ridiculous claim and no understanding of delay..

the reason for why there is no delay in response is because NASA is responding to the voice of the astronaut..

ie.. the voice of the astronaut asking "this one right here?" has already taken one second to reach houston, and houston is responding to it immediately, which is what we hear.. houston's response will then take another second to go back to the atronaut..

I just put in the opposite of it, by mistake, in that one post. Of course, you see it as a chance to play Grand Poobah.

I've made many more posts on the camera pan issue, yet have diddly squat to say on that issue.

Any reason why?

choos

have you wondered why the astronaut asks the same question twice?? because he was waiting for the answer which took a while to get back to him, he got silence for over 2 seconds so he probably thought his question wasnt heard..

so effectively that clip proves there was a delay just you not understanding what is happening.

The clip proves there was an audio delay of over two seconds?

I agree - there is, indeed, a delay of more than two seconds.

I also agree that an audio delay of over two seconds would occur on the moon.

But they weren't on the moon...


Houston tells the astronaut about a rock, nearby. He is told exactly where the rock is, to get samples from it.

So when does Houston tell him about this rock?

14:22 to 14:29.

He would hear it over two seconds later - if he's on the moon.
Let's say 14:24 to 14:31

When would he first be able to react to this comment? Right after he hears it, obviously.

He reacts to the comment before it finishes being said - in real-time. He is first seen moving toward it by 14:30, the comment ends at 14:31.

That's iffy, at best.

A much bigger problem exists, however..

At 14:33, the astronaut is a few feet from the rock. He then points at it, and asks Houston.. "This one right here?"

Houston immediately says "That's it."

The video signals match up so perfectly with the audio signals, don't they? A 'real-time' event is filmed by a camera operated from Earth. The footage is transmitted to Earth via a video signal.

Audio signals are also being transmitted - to/from Houston and to/from the astronaut.

There is an audio signal and there is a video signal, but they are not synchronized. They can be matched together later, on Earth, in a film studio.

The audio signal is processed into an EM signal on the lunar surface, and then is transmitted to Earth. (Audio signals can't transmit through space). The EM signal is received, and processed back into an audio signal, where it can finally be heard at Houston.

We agreed the audio delay will be over 2 seconds.

The video signal?

Video signals go through very different processing.

The most important difference being - DURATION.

A video signal takes much longer to process compared to an audio signal.

You see the problem here?

The astronaut points at a rock, and says "This one here?". Houston says "That's it".

THE AUDIO AND VIDEO SIGNALS ARE ALREADY PRECISELY SYNCHRONIZED WHEN HOUSTON SEES IT!!

It is impossible for the audio and video to be in synch. Huge give-away it's a hoax

JuniorDisco
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Dear god you really are as dumb as a box of rocks aren't you?

Do you always go back to your inner child when 'Apollo' is being discussed? Or is this normally how you act?

A sad case, either way

turbonium1
Houston tells the astronaut about a rock, nearby. He is told exactly where the rock is, to get samples from it.

So when does Houston tell him about this rock?

14:22 to 14:29.

He would hear it over two seconds later - if he's on the moon.
Let's say 14:24 to 14:31

No - he would hear it 1.3 seconds later.

When would he first be able to react to this comment? Right after he hears it, obviously.

Which he does.

He reacts to the comment before it finishes being said - in real-time. He is first seen moving toward it by 14:30, the comment ends at 14:31.

Wow - reacting to something being said at the same time as it's being said. You never done that?

That's iffy, at best.

In your opinion

A much bigger problem exists, however..

At 14:33, the astronaut is a few feet from the rock. He then points at it, and asks Houston.. "This one right here?"

Houston immediately says "That's it."

The video signals match up so perfectly with the audio signals, don't they? A 'real-time' event is filmed by a camera operated from Earth. The footage is transmitted to Earth via a video signal.

Audio signals are also being transmitted - to/from Houston and to/from the astronaut.

There is an audio signal and there is a video signal, but they are not synchronized. They can be matched together later, on Earth, in a film studio.

Except it's being broadcast live from the moon.

The audio signal is processed into an EM signal on the lunar surface, and then is transmitted to Earth. (Audio signals can't transmit through space). The EM signal is received, and processed back into an audio signal, where it can finally be heard at Houston.

We agreed the audio delay will be over 2 seconds.

The video signal?

Video signals go through very different processing.

The most important difference being - DURATION.

A video signal takes much longer to process compared to an audio signal.

You see the problem here?

The astronaut points at a rock, and says "This one here?". Houston says "That's it".

THE AUDIO AND VIDEO SIGNALS ARE ALREADY PRECISELY SYNCHRONIZED WHEN HOUSTON SEES IT!!

It is impossible for the audio and video to be in synch. Huge give-away it's a hoax

You ever watch TV? Ever wonder who audio sent through a microphone and video from the camera somehow get magically synchronised? Maybe because they are both being sent at the same time at the same speed?

The video and audio signals were both sent at the same time using the Unified S Band system. Do some research:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

If you believe it would be any different, show us the maths - you can check it by looking at the live broadcasts from space where you can see them speaking.

turbonium1

JuniorDisco
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Dear god you really are as dumb as a box of rocks aren't you?

Do you always go back to your inner child when 'Apollo' is being discussed? Or is this normally how you act?

A sad case, either way

Dont take it personally im sure he didnt mean to insult you.Some people just get frustrated they expect everyone to have common sense but one thing i learned along time ago it isnt as common as one might think. So ill make it easier there is a 1.3 second delay since the video from the moon is continuous live feed thr delay from the moon isnt noticed in conversations only the delay from houston to the astronauts. A delay of 1.3 seconds is overcome by the astronauts specifically inserting pauses when talking to houston. Listen to how they talk to each other vs earth. When the astronauts banter back and forth they cut each other off alot on the videos. As far as camera pans operators have been doing that for a while in live broadcasts there is usually a 5 second delay from camera to video feed.they give the cameraman directions through a headset you dont notice during a football game it all seems pre planned to you.The reason for the delay is to allow them to switch camera shots if necessary.

onebigmonkey

You ever watch TV? Ever wonder who audio sent through a microphone and video from the camera somehow get magically synchronised? Maybe because they are both being sent at the same time at the same speed?

So, you're saying that two seperate signals (like audio and video) will be instantly synchronized when they are both transmitted to Earth at the same time, and are both received on Earth at the same time??!!?

And you're asking ME to do some research?!

They are both sent at the same time, and both the same speed, and are both received at the same time.

This doesn't synchronize them. I'm trying not to laugh about how silly that is..

The TV signal has NO sound, because the Apollo TV camera had no microphone . Any audio/voice had to be generated by another source. The audio can record sounds/voices at the very same time as the TV camera records, of course.

They are not morphed into one, which you probably believe they would do. Like when both signals arrive on Earth at the same time.

Processing has to be done after they are received on Earth. Two signals may fly here together, but must go their separate ways! You see that?

After they are processed, they can be put together as one final beast.

You probably think it'd be easy for NASA to do all that, right? It was not easy to do it back then, not even for 'mighty NASA'.

turbonium1

I just put in the opposite of it, by mistake, in that one post. Of course, you see it as a chance to play Grand Poobah.

I've made many more posts on the camera pan issue, yet have diddly squat to say on that issue.

Any reason why?

well yes.. where this has a clear cut and easy explaination, the other is not as much but if i said coincidence to you.. what would that prove??

those video pans are upto interpretations.. to me it was coincidence at first, when the camera controller guy notices the astronaut doing what he believes as interesting things he then focuses on the astronaut again.. do you really believe this explaination is going to convince you?? its my interpretation of what is happening..

whereas the delay explaination is very obvious to anyone who uses their brain..

The clip proves there was an audio delay of over two seconds?

I agree - there is, indeed, a delay of more than two seconds.

I also agree that an audio delay of over two seconds would occur on the moon.

But they weren't on the moon...

your clip proves there was a delay, you just dont hear it since the overlap would have occured on the astronauts side..

you already realise there is a delay.. you wondered why the astronaut questions "this one right here?" twice with a long pause in between.. that there proves there was a delay..

how do you know they werent on the moon?? the bag throw/fling proves they were on the moon..

Houston tells the astronaut about a rock, nearby. He is told exactly where the rock is, to get samples from it.

So when does Houston tell him about this rock?

14:22 to 14:29.

He would hear it over two seconds later - if he's on the moon.
Let's say 14:24 to 14:31

When would he first be able to react to this comment? Right after he hears it, obviously.

He reacts to the comment before it finishes being said - in real-time. He is first seen moving toward it by 14:30, the comment ends at 14:31.

That's iffy, at best.

theres atleast a 2second delay between when houston finishes talking and he questions "this one right here?" whats wrong with that??

A much bigger problem exists, however..

At 14:33, the astronaut is a few feet from the rock. He then points at it, and asks Houston.. "This one right here?"

Houston immediately says "That's it."

The video signals match up so perfectly with the audio signals, don't they? A 'real-time' event is filmed by a camera operated from Earth. The footage is transmitted to Earth via a video signal.

Audio signals are also being transmitted - to/from Houston and to/from the astronaut.

There is an audio signal and there is a video signal, but they are not synchronized. They can be matched together later, on Earth, in a film studio.

The audio signal is processed into an EM signal on the lunar surface, and then is transmitted to Earth. (Audio signals can't transmit through space). The EM signal is received, and processed back into an audio signal, where it can finally be heard at Houston.

We agreed the audio delay will be over 2 seconds.

The video signal?

Video signals go through very different processing.

wtf??

what authority do you have to say this must happen the way you expect it to??

audio and video signals travel on the same wavelength, where ever the video feed goes the audio goes at exactly the same speed.. from what i remember all signals were transmitted through the unified S-band.. so what the camera sees in that instant would be transmitted at that instant as well as any audio that occured.. ie. it would all be sent together

cant speak for the processing methods though as i dont know about that stuff, but clearly you seem to be very knowledgable in that field right?? oh wait.. you dont even have a camera..

The most important difference being - DURATION.

A video signal takes much longer to process compared to an audio signal.

You see the problem here?

The astronaut points at a rock, and says "This one here?". Houston says "That's it".

THE AUDIO AND VIDEO SIGNALS ARE ALREADY PRECISELY SYNCHRONIZED WHEN HOUSTON SEES IT!!

It is impossible for the audio and video to be in synch. Huge give-away it's a hoax

impossible to be in synch, even though they were transmitted at exactly the same time?? who says so?? you?? under what authority?? even for live feeds??

ive seen live feeds with delays and the audio have been in synch with the video.. i thought you said its impossible?? in fact i made a skype video call with the video in synch with the audio as well.. i thought it was impossible??? what is this sorcery??