Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1

No, the scene was filmed on Earth, and it's been slowed to 66.66%.

His method of calculating for gravity is the problem.

His assumption is that Charlie Duke is the astronaut in the clip. It could be Duke, but it could be someone else, playing the 'role' of Duke. We can't tell who is in the suit. This means the height of ~6 ft. (Duke's height) can't be confirmed.

does the PLSS have known dimensions??

is the PLSS right next to the scene for reference??

your argument is null and void before it began.

Without knowing the exact height of the astronaut, it is not possible to estimate the actual height of the dust. That means we cannot calculate this any further.

And even if the astronaut's height was known to be ~ 6 ft., it doesn't work.

you can use the PLSS for reference, count how many squares the PLSS takes up and us that as a reference..

Dust is probably the worst material to calculate for gravity. The fine particles stay aloft longer than other objects (ie: a tennis ball) on Earth, due to air resistance. And dust is not a single object, like a ball. Dust consists of many fine particles, which are sprayed over an entire area at once. There is no exact height it can be measured at.

He doesn't let the dust fall to the ground in his video, as well.

you dont need to wait, you can see the height the dust reaches and that is basically all you need to know.

if there was any atmosphere in the scene you would have noticed from the billowing of the dust.. it would have lingered, that is not represented here..

and if you want to change the material to sand, well sand doesnt get suspended by a still atmosphere..

It is impossible to make valid calculations for gravity with that little clip.

only by your belief and lack of knowledge is this comment valid..

Then cite examples of centrifugal force existing without any form of gravity being present. If you can do that, then I'll admit I was mistaken. If you don't, then you should admit to the mistake.

hmm well let me see, gyroscopes experience centrifugal force, and they use gyroscopes to help orientate spacecrafts/satellites/probes..

also your own quote states that "without gravity centrifugal force cannot exist" that is markedly different from centrifugal force being able to create artificial gravity.. i know you are trying to weasel out of that brain fart..

The Mythbusters jump at 67% is less than 0.5 seconds faster than Young's jump, for sure.

Now, what if the Mythbusters jump was slowed to 66.66%, which I cited as being the exact speed?

At 67%, the Mythbusters jump was a fraction of a second faster than Young's jump. So at 66.66%, it would be a fraction slower, yes?

They might be a perfect (or nearly perfect) match, after all!

incorrect..

you see, the difference between there would be in the much much less than half a second.. here basic logic, if 0.34% equates to a difference of about 0.3 seconds, then well get what im getting at?? to the eye, 0.34% speed difference is absolutely unnoticable..

lemme just use maths instead..

john youngs jump is completed in about 1.5seconds on the lunar surface. 67% of 1.5seconds is about 1.005 seconds.. 66.66666666666666% of 1.5seconds is 0.9999999999999seconds.. so the difference of 0.34% is about 0.005seconds or 5 thousanth of a second...... so you are wrong again..

the difference between john youngs jump and the mythbusters jump however can be explained easily.. you need to slow down the mythbusters jump 2.45x.. 2.45x faster than 1.5 seconds is 0.612 seconds.. about 0.3-0.4 second difference between the mythbusters at 66.66%/67% and the mythbusters at 41%/2.45x..

and since we know that slowing it down to 2.45x will be slower than slowing it down to 1.5x the mythbusters jump at 2.45x will be about 0.3-0.4 seconds longer than the mythbusters jump at 67%/1.5x slower.. which makes up the difference that you see when its slowed to 66.66/67%.. get it?? i think this might confuse you a bit..

reply to post by turbonium1

Then cite examples of centrifugal force existing without any form of gravity being present. If you can do that, then I'll admit I was mistaken. If you don't, then you should admit to the mistake. * See * in my answer

You are not presenting an accurate understanding of centrifugal force. Gravity and centrifugal force are not related, but gravity does affect it. In other words, mass (gravity) is part of the equation in figuring centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is actually an apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. The term "apparent" is important because centrifugal force is a virtual force that does not actually exist.

Gravity is a measure of attraction created by the mass of an object. All matter has this attraction.

Centrifugal force is created by the inertia of the body as the body's path is continually redirected.

This is actually kind of fun. Remember that merry-go-round on the play ground that you could sit on and spin it until you puked, or fell off, and then were so dizzy you couldn't walk straight. The reason you had to hang on is because of centrifugal force. As the merry-go-round moves it causes anything reacting with it, like a little kid sitting on it, to be accelerated and flung outward from the center. If there is something to hold that little kid on, say a bar or a wall, like those spinning rides where the floor drops out from under your feet while you are being accelerated and stuck up against the wall then the force would be felt as pressure against the outer wall. This is centrifugal force. Mass is only used to figure the amount of force that is being exerted on the object.

* You could place one of these merry-go-rounds out into deep space and the math would be the same. The gravity of the Earth, or any other planet or moon does not specifically figure into the equation. This would only matter if you were to figure the centrifugal force of a person standing on the Earth. It would vary depending on whether you were standing on the equator or on one of the poles. In this case the specific gravity of Earth is strong enough to keep you and me from being flung off into space.

Wikipedia's explanation of Centrifugal force

Artificial Gravity Space Station

turbonium1

The Earth shots you're referring to were taken from space, not from the moon. So even if those shots were 'live', they have nothing to do with any (so-called) 'live' broadcasts from the moon.

There were live broadcasts from the moon showing the Earth.

They don't need to fake the astronauts floating around in their capsule. It was already possible to fly astronauts into LEO by that point. We could have done 'live" broadcasts from LEO.

LEO broadcasts require a change in receiving station every 10 minutes or so as the spacecraft moves away from its current receiver. Apollo broadcasts changed every few hours as the Earth rotated underneath it. You can't get a picture of the whole Earth from LEO.

But we didn't, and we couldn't, do 'live' broadcasts from the moon. They said it was 'live', so it was (or is) believed to be 'live'.

Oh really? Got any proof for that? All of the probes that surveyed the moon prior to the landings broadcast the images they took over FM signals back to Earth. There is absolutely no technological problem for sending live TV back to Earth whatsoever. All you need to do is make a broadcast and point it at a dish. Even amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth can send a broadcast signal to the moon and get it back and that has twice as much atmosphere to get through.

They even put 'LIVE FROM THE MOON' on the bottom of our TV screens, during the 'historical' Apollo 11 moon landing. They always re-inforced the idea of moon footage being shown 'live', which adds more realism. A 'live' broadcast is impossible to fake, after all.

Ah yes. "They". They put "Live from the moon" on the screen because it was, for the very first time, live from the moon. Something worth drawing attention to don't you think?

There are many advantages to filming fake moon footage. We cannot go there and see it for ourselves. We cannot see a man walking on the moon, with Earth's most powerful telescopes. We don't know what it would be like to actually fly to the moon, or to land on the moon. We don't know what astronauts would look like when they walked on the moon.

Which pretty much negates any argument you have for the footage not being believable. If you have no idea what it would be like, how can you say it doesn't look right?

Only NASA claims to know all this. And their footage supposedly shot on the moon is believed to be genuine, based on nothing but their word.

No. Not just their word. There is also the evidence, evidence that stacks up a mile high in support of the missions. The rocks, the tracking stations, the amateur tracking, the seismic data, the LRRR data, the photographs and footage of small rocks and craters that are only now being photographed again, the pictures and footage of Earth that show the smallest detail in weather patterns to be correct, the pictures of the lunar terminator in exactly the right places as determined from the transcripts, the pictures of the Earth's terminator that are exactly right as determined by the transcripts, photographs of Venus and Jupiter in exactly the right places. Not one single piece of evidence has been proven to be false, every single piece of it is correct, and not one piece of so called evidence from the Apollo denier camp has stood up to scrutiny. Not one.

Another advantage in filming a fake - slowing the footage can be done without audio (the astronauts' voices). We can't see if their mouths, or faces, behind the reflective visors!

You still need to get your head around the fact that the astronaut footage is not in slow motion. A lot of the time they aren't even moving slowly. Slowing down film does not replicate lunar gravity. You're starting from a false premise and then making it worse by not understanding gravity.

dragonridr

Your not good at math and science are you? first lets discuss the astronauts height his plss is 24 in in with the addition of the oxygen purge system on top adding another7 in meaning the total height 31 in. Now since your such a genius in math im sure you can use this fact to verify the height of our astronaut in the video. Now as far as centrifugal force not working unless there is gravity. Really not sure what to say other then you flunked science in high school didnt you?

Centrifugal force is caused not by gravity but by something we call inertia. See when an object is in motion it likes to stay in motion. Like throwing a baseball ever see one reverse direction? Well centrifugal force is caused when we have an object in motion on a circular path. The object wants to travel in a straight path but is constantly redirected causing an outward force. Any spinning object develops centrifugal force independent of gravity. In fact do you know why the shuttle is weightless there not far out enough to be in space and are still under the effects of earths gravity. Yet its weightless inside because the gravity is off set by the shuttle falling towards earth. See the shuttle is in constant free fall around the earth just like the vomit comet they use to show 0 g. But the reason it doesnt hit the earth is centrifugal force is pushing it outward as it falls allowing it to maintain orbit. Side effect of this centrifugal force is it negates the gravity pulling it towards the earth meaning 0 g.

You say the total system is 31 in.

It covers nearly 1/2 of his body. Or, almost 1/2 his total height.

31" x 2 = 62". He would be only 5' 2".

If he is 6' tall, or 72" - his lower body would be 10" longer than the system is.

We know the system is 31", so 1/3 of the system gives us the extra 10". We add it to the bottom edge of the system.

But that is more than half his height - it goes below 'butt-level'.

So while he appears to be more than 5' 2", he is clearly not close to 6' tall. As the video claims he is.



As for centrifugal force - I didn't say it is 'caused' by gravity. I said centrifugal force only exists in a gravity environment. If you dispute that, then you need to cite an example where centrifugal force exists without a gravity environment.

You're saying centrifugal force is created by spinning, and that's quite true. But it is still being created within a gravity environment. If you think it can be created independent of a gravity environment, give me an example.

The issue is off-topic, so time to move along..

turbonium1
As for centrifugal force - I didn't say it is 'caused' by gravity. I said centrifugal force only exists in a gravity environment. If you dispute that, then you need to cite an example where centrifugal force exists without a gravity environment.

You're saying centrifugal force is created by spinning, and that's quite true. But it is still being created within a gravity environment. If you think it can be created independent of a gravity environment, give me an example.

The issue is off-topic, so time to move along..

are you still holding onto this blatantly false statement??

have you not been reading any posts but your own?? its not just dragonrdr telling you your understanding of centrifugal force is wrong its about 4/5 others.. are we all wrong or is it you??

such an ignorant statement is defying physics.. so how can anyone proceed if you cannot comprehend such a basic concept?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by turbonium1


Centrifugal force: Just imagine getting a ball on the end of a piece of string and spinning it around in circles. It's going to work just as well in zero gravity.

And if you want examples, just pick any rotating body in the universe. There's a bit of choice there.

reply to post by turbonium1

You're saying centrifugal force is created by spinning, and that's quite true. But it is still being created within a gravity environment. If you think it can be created independent of a gravity environment, give me an example.

Given that centriufugal and centripetal force are essentially an opposed pair with opposite directions (or an interchangeable pair, if you're willing to do the reference-frame shift), if I can show you one being generated in microgravity, I've essentially shown you the other.

Ask, and ye shall receive.
ISS Centripetal Force Demonstration

Linked rather than embedded because I couldn't make the embed work correctly.

onebigmonkey

LEO broadcasts require a change in receiving station every 10 minutes or so as the spacecraft moves away from its current receiver. Apollo broadcasts changed every few hours as the Earth rotated underneath it. You can't get a picture of the whole Earth from LEO.

Right - we use satellites to get those images.

onebigmonkey

Oh really? Got any proof for that? All of the probes that surveyed the moon prior to the landings broadcast the images they took over FM signals back to Earth. There is absolutely no technological problem for sending live TV back to Earth whatsoever. All you need to do is make a broadcast and point it at a dish. Even amateur radio enthusiasts on Earth can send a broadcast signal to the moon and get it back and that has twice as much atmosphere to get through.

Have you read any of the Apollo transmission documents? I have.

If you find anything on 'live TV broadcasts' being sent back to Earth, from the moon, with audio (astronauts voices) in synch, simultaneously sent and received, without any decoding or conversion required, and no delays at all....please tell me about it!!

onebigmonkey

Which pretty much negates any argument you have for the footage not being believable. If you have no idea what it would be like, how can you say it doesn't look right?

And how can you say it DOES look right?

onebigmonkey

No. Not just their word. There is also the evidence, evidence that stacks up a mile high in support of the missions. The rocks, the tracking stations, the amateur tracking, the seismic data, the LRRR data, the photographs and footage of small rocks and craters that are only now being photographed again, the pictures and footage of Earth that show the smallest detail in weather patterns to be correct, the pictures of the lunar terminator in exactly the right places as determined from the transcripts, the pictures of the Earth's terminator that are exactly right as determined by the transcripts, photographs of Venus and Jupiter in exactly the right places. Not one single piece of evidence has been proven to be false, every single piece of it is correct, and not one piece of so called evidence from the Apollo denier camp has stood up to scrutiny. Not one.

It's just the opposite. The evidence of a hoax is piling up more and more all the time. Apollo's story has been shredded.

The lack of technology was the reason for a hoax back then. Advances in technology are the reason the hoax is being exposed today.

The photos and videos have been shot all to hell. They are riddled with flaws. Radiation is being revealed for the hazard it really is. Nothing can excuse Apollo on that issue anymore.

Science is now showing Apollo was just fantasy-land.

onebigmonkey

You still need to get your head around the fact that the astronaut footage is not in slow motion. A lot of the time they aren't even moving slowly. Slowing down film does not replicate lunar gravity. You're starting from a false premise and then making it worse by not understanding gravity.

I agree with you - slowing down film does not replicate true lunar gravity.

Slowing down a jump on Earth to 66.66% will not replicate a jump in genuine lunar gravity.

Thus, when we see the slowed-down Earth jump is nearly a perfect match with the Apollo jump, we know beyond any doubt that the Apollo jump was not done in genuine lunar gravity!

You get it, then!!

choos
you see, the difference between there would be in the much much less than half a second.. here basic logic, if 0.34% equates to a difference of about 0.3 seconds, then well get what im getting at?? to the eye, 0.34% speed difference is absolutely unnoticable..

lemme just use maths instead..

john youngs jump is completed in about 1.5seconds on the lunar surface. 67% of 1.5seconds is about 1.005 seconds.. 66.66666666666666% of 1.5seconds is 0.9999999999999seconds.. so the difference of 0.34% is about 0.005seconds or 5 thousanth of a second...... so you are wrong again..

the difference between john youngs jump and the mythbusters jump however can be explained easily.. you need to slow down the mythbusters jump 2.45x.. 2.45x faster than 1.5 seconds is 0.612 seconds.. about 0.3-0.4 second difference between the mythbusters at 66.66%/67% and the mythbusters at 41%/2.45x..

and since we know that slowing it down to 2.45x will be slower than slowing it down to 1.5x the mythbusters jump at 2.45x will be about 0.3-0.4 seconds longer than the mythbusters jump at 67%/1.5x slower.. which makes up the difference that you see when its slowed to 66.66/67%.. get it?? i think this might confuse you a bit..

The two jumps are less than 0.5 seconds apart - more like a 0.1-0.2 second difference. At 66.66%, it is even less of a difference.

Let's say Mythbusters did their exact same jump, 9 more times. A total of 10 jumps done the same way. Do you think all 10 jumps will have the same duration, down to 1/100th second?

This is what you're saying, really. You think that these jumps would be identical in duration, or certainly less than 0.1 - 0.5 seconds of a difference. If you did the jump a thousand times, we would never have a variance of 0.5 seconds!

That's just ridiculous.

It would be remarkable to get a variance of less than 0.5 seconds in such a case!

0.5 seconds difference could be from different pulley (or the system) being used. Apollo might have used Acme's Model 21, and Mythbusters used Acme's newest - Model 44.

It could be the same pulley system, just set up a little differently.

The reasons are endless.

Think about it...

My stars, are people still denying the moon landings and other people patiently proving it to them on this thread? I haven't looked at it in over a year and may have to go back and read the new stuff for entertainment value.

What I've said in posts on these threads previously is that the deniers are missing out on the feeling of the human race having put themselves onto the moon! Not that long ago either. So of all the tens of thousands of years that humans have looked up at the moon and wondered, some of the people who've been there are still among us. Please do yourself the honor of seeking one of them out, either in person or by telephone, just to have that human connection with someone who's been there. I was lucky to have talked with Neil Armstrong, and spent some good time with Buzz Aldrin during his book promotion, and have met or talked to most of the other moonmen just to do it (like counting peaceful coup on moon walkers). The moon is our oyster, and members of the human race have actually stood on its shell.

reply to post by turbonium1

It's just the opposite. The evidence of a hoax is piling up more and more all the time. Apollo's story has been shredded.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide some sort of evidence then. So far, all you have done is repeat your opinion that things don't "look right."

The lack of technology was the reason for a hoax back then. Advances in technology are the reason the hoax is being exposed today.

What technology was lacking? Are you saying that the Saturn 5 did not exist? What technology do you believe is "exposing" it today? YouTube?

The photos and videos have been shot all to hell. They are riddled with flaws.

No. Every supposed "flaw" has been shown to be due to ignorance on the part of naive viewers.

Radiation is being revealed for the hazard it really is. Nothing can excuse Apollo on that issue anymore.

Please provide specifics if you are going to make a technical claim. All the scientific data, not just NASA's but ESA's and that gathered by Russian researchers suggest that passage through the radiation belts and the background radiation in cis-lunar space is safe over a period of some weeks. If you can find actual research that contradicts this, please present it.

Science is now showing Apollo was just fantasy-land.

Correction: not only science, but history and common sense is showing that you Hoaxies are living in a fantasy land.

turbonium1
The two jumps are less than 0.5 seconds apart - more like a 0.1-0.2 second difference. At 66.66%, it is even less of a difference.

even less of a difference?? the difference between 66.66% slowdown and 67% slowdown was 0.005 seconds.. clutching at straws much??

Let's say Mythbusters did their exact same jump, 9 more times. A total of 10 jumps done the same way. Do you think all 10 jumps will have the same duration, down to 1/100th second?

This is what you're saying, really. You think that these jumps would be identical in duration, or certainly less than 0.1 - 0.5 seconds of a difference. If you did the jump a thousand times, we would never have a variance of 0.5 seconds!

they are different jumps. every jump is different, the higher the height the longer the airtime, the lower the height jumped the less time it is completed, this is if gravity was constant..

so when we compare john youngs jump with the mythbusters jump at 67% or 66.66% if you want to clutch at straws.. although they are different jumps, why is it that the mythbusters jump at 67% is not only higher than john youngs jump, but also of shorter duration of nearly half a second??

also dont you find it strange that the difference between 67% (1.5x slower) and 41% (2.45x slower) is about 0.3 seconds.. which would roughly make up the difference between 67% and john youngs jump. im not saying they have to be perfect, but a 0.3 second difference is the difference between lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2 and your earth gravity of 4.3m/s^2..

remember when you asked to slow it down to 2.45x?? nearly makes up for the difference doesnt it?

That's just ridiculous.

It would be remarkable to get a variance of less than 0.5 seconds in such a case!

if the heights were exactly the same, the variance would be 0, no matter the mass, all objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum.. if they jumped higher the jump would take longer, if they jump lower the jump will be over faster.

0.5 seconds difference could be from different pulley (or the system) being used. Apollo might have used Acme's Model 21, and Mythbusters used Acme's newest - Model 44.

It could be the same pulley system, just set up a little differently.

The reasons are endless.

Think about it...

or john young was probably filmed jumping on the lunar surface..
think about it.

and dont forget about the dust/dirt/sand issue.. they must have used ropes/strings for the dust/dirt/sand as well right?!?!

spartacus699
Check out this chinese footage from there rover. Looks completely different than the landscape of the US appollo landings. Can anyone explain this???

Different location different camera type film/digital for starts, even if you were taken there YOU would claim that was hoaxed there is plenty of evidence if you cant understand whats being explained or shown to you there will be night classes in your area to EDUCATE you in science & photography/imaging!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Plus, China isn't releasing all of the image files, and some of the images seen in this video were instead photographs of the images taken of a TV monitor. That indirect photographing-of-the-TV-monitor was the method used for some of the first released images taken by the China lander and rover.

turbonium1

Right - we use satellites to get those images.

You need to go look at how satellites work. The only way you can get a satellite to get a picture of the whole Earth is if it is in geostationary orbit at about 22000 miles up. The geostationary part means you only get to see one part of the Earth. There were only 2 satellites in that kind of geostationary orbit during Apollo, they didn't cover the entire Earth and they only gave black and white images. The majority of satellite images of Earth were done in LEO and were also only in black and white. It took a whole day to get a full image of Earth. On most occasions when photographs or film of Earth were taken or where the weather is described in detail, those images were not available as they hadn't been taken.

I see you missed out from all these quotes the bit where you mention it being impossible to broadcast images from the moon to Earth. How do you think those satellites get their broadcasts down to Earth?

Have you read any of the Apollo transmission documents? I have.

If you find anything on 'live TV broadcasts' being sent back to Earth, from the moon, with audio (astronauts voices) in synch, simultaneously sent and received, without any decoding or conversion required, and no delays at all....please tell me about it!!

I doubt very much that you have read all the transcripts. If you'd read them you'd know how many times they mention those broadcasts, how many times they describe what they can see and also which receiving station was getting the signals. Did you even bother to read the document given to you showing how the TV broadcasts work. The broadcasts had the appropriate delay in them given the transmission times involved. If you have any evidence from those transcripts, or the broadcasts themselves that indicate that this isn't so, please show them. It's also quite clear from your posts that you do not understand how the technology works.

Here, for example, is just one tiny piece including transcripts of the ground audio:

109:21:22 McCandless: (This is) Houston. Roger. We copy. Standing by for your TV.
[There are numerous examples of Bruce beginning his transmissions with "This is Houston." He has to 'key' his microphone to transmit and, in this case, may not have gotten it turned on until after he had said "This is".]
Flight Director's Loop
Flight: Capcom, Flight. Do you verify TV circuit breaker in?
Capcom: I mentioned it. Let me check.
Flight: Verify it.
[Flight wants to be sure the TV camera is ready so they can monitor Neil's climb down the LM ladder. At 109:21:22, McCandless told Buzz they were "standing by for your TV," but didn't specifically mention the circuit breaker, probably hoping that Buzz would take the hint.]
109:21:39 Armstrong: Houston, this is Neil. Radio check.
109:21:42 McCandless: Neil, this is Houston. Loud and clear. Break. Break. Buzz, this is Houston. Radio check, and verify TV circuit breaker in.

109:21:54 Aldrin: Roger, TV circuit breaker's in. And read you loud and clear.

At the time the broadcasts were being sent through Australia, which is exactly what should have been in view at the start of the EVA. Photographs of Earth taken during the EVA also show Australia and show the exact same weather patterns that the LEO satellite photographs show.

You could, if you were bothered in actually carrying out some research, listen to the bit where Nixon calls them. You can hear the feedback loop in parts of it where his voice gets repeated back to him through the astronaut headsets. Here's a link for you to check it for yourself - you get the effect at the start when mission control speak.

www.youtube.com...

You're also discussing this with someone who is old enough to have watched it on TV, so I'm not just relying on youtube to bolster up my philosophy.

And how can you say it DOES look right?

By looking at the way the surface materials behave, by looking at the motion of the astronauts, by looking at the way things like flags, carrier bags and other materials behave. You know, the stuff you ignore. I've also looked carefully at photographs and film footage that show details you only now get to see in the LRO photographs. I've looked at the photographs of Earth that show accurate weather patterns that they discuss. I've looked at everything, all of it matches up with what you should see.

It's just the opposite. The evidence of a hoax is piling up more and more all the time. Apollo's story has been shredded.

No it hasn't. This is just empty soapbox rhetoric of the emperor's new clothes variety. Not one single piece of the supposed evidence supporting a hoax ever stands up to educated scrutiny, and the people peddling it are liars.

The lack of technology was the reason for a hoax back then. Advances in technology are the reason the hoax is being exposed today.

Garbage. The technology existed. It is documented in minute detail, the construction process is there on photograph and film. The launches were watched by millions in person. Science and engineering got Apollo to the moon, you don't understand either of those topics.

The photos and videos have been shot all to hell. They are riddled with flaws. Radiation is being revealed for the hazard it really is. Nothing can excuse Apollo on that issue anymore.

No. They aren't flawed, not one supposed analysis stands up to scrutiny because those analyses are being done by badly educated liars. Stop relying on them for your supposed truth. Radiation is an issue, it was always an issue, it was always known about, that's why they took measures to control it and took regular readings of it.

Science is now showing Apollo was just fantasy-land.

Nope. Show one example where science proves Apollo didn't happen. Actual science using actual scientists not some whacko who bought his degree online.

I agree with you - slowing down film does not replicate true lunar gravity.

Slowing down a jump on Earth to 66.66% will not replicate a jump in genuine lunar gravity.

Thus, when we see the slowed-down Earth jump is nearly a perfect match with the Apollo jump, we know beyond any doubt that the Apollo jump was not done in genuine lunar gravity!

You get it, then!!

And your last section there proves you don't. The circumstances of the Earth jump are not the same because they used a range of wires and pulleys that were not used in the Apollo footage. Apollo footage is not slowed down - it was live TV broadcast, not film or video.

You still aren't able to explain how the soil particles also behave exactly as they should in a zero atmospere low gravity environment, or carrier bags, or pieces of mylar blown away as the ascent module takes off. In fact you fail to explain anything - all you're doing is saying "I don't believe it".

Aleister
My stars, are people still denying the moon landings and other people patiently proving it to them on this thread? I haven't looked at it in over a year and may have to go back and read the new stuff for entertainment value.

What I've said in posts on these threads previously is that the deniers are missing out on the feeling of the human race having put themselves onto the moon! Not that long ago either. So of all the tens of thousands of years that humans have looked up at the moon and wondered, some of the people who've been there are still among us. Please do yourself the honor of seeking one of them out, either in person or by telephone, just to have that human connection with someone who's been there. I was lucky to have talked with Neil Armstrong, and spent some good time with Buzz Aldrin during his book promotion, and have met or talked to most of the other moonmen just to do it (like counting peaceful coup on moon walkers). The moon is our oyster, and members of the human race have actually stood on its shell.

^^Totally this.

It isn 't that hard to track down and get in touch with people who were involved in Apollo one way or another, and provided you don't mind spending money you can meet Apollo astronauts in person. If you ask them civilised questions you'll get a civilised answer.

I've met Charlie Duke and Alan Bean. I hope to meet Ken Mattingley in April.

www.space-lectures.com...

I've also bought a lot of contemporary material partly because it's interesting an partly to prove to idiots that not everything has been falsified in the last five years for their benefit and that this stuff has been around for decades. The evidence supporting Apollo is not just online, it is not just on youtube, it is available in real life. This is much more than can be said for the cellar dwelling hoaxer fantasists.

I like to look at the present to determine if the past was fake.

Here is the first problem with the current space suit technology.

youtu.be...


Then they decided in 2013 they needed to add snorkels to the space suit.




Then it happened again... our wonderful 2013 technology failing us.



So why did their spacesuit work so perfectly in 1969? When the alleged astronauts on the moon were falling over and bouncing into rocks, and playing golf, and thrashing the moon rover etc. etc.

Again, it doesn't add up. In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

ppk55
I like to look at the present to determine if the past was fake.

Here is the first problem with the current space suit technology.

Then they decided in 2013 they needed to add snorkels to the space suit.

Then it happened again... our wonderful 2013 technology failing us.

So why did their spacesuit work so perfectly in 1969? When the alleged astronauts on the moon were falling over and bouncing into rocks, and playing golf, and thrashing the moon rover etc. etc.

Again, it doesn't add up. In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

doesnt add up?? well hmm.. let me see now..

how long has lockheed martin been making fighter jets??

so why now does lockheed martin have some issues with its state of the art F-22 raptor?? if i apply the same logic as yourself than it must mean that the f-104, sr71, f-117 were all faked??

i mean why did the f-104 work so well in 1969 when they were alleged used in the US airforce??

in 45 years technology should advance not go backwards so why is the F-22 having problems??

ppk55
So why did their spacesuit work so perfectly in 1969? When the alleged astronauts on the moon were falling over and bouncing into rocks, and playing golf, and thrashing the moon rover etc. etc.

Again, it doesn't add up. In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

Forgetting Apollo for a second, why did they work so well during the dozens of times they used them while they were constructing the space station and fixing Hubble prior to the water incident? Or do you think those ISS space walks and the Hubble spacewalks never happened? (actually there were a couple of other minor incidents with suits reported during the Shuttle and ISS spacewalks. However, the amount of post Apollo EVAs is still well greater than Apollo-era EVAs).

I think the problem with the suits now could be complacency. The people who are preparing and refurbishing the spacesuits could be getting more complacent (i.e., maybe a little sloppy) because it has become a relatively common event to perform a spacewalk. It may not be a conscious thought such as "oh, I think I'll cut corners here", but back when it was a novel endeavor, the support people who were in charge of suits may have been much more subconsciously diligent in their work. I'm not saying that is definitly the cause, but it's possible.

Also, I winder how old the spacesuits were that failed recently? I assume the Apollo suits were all brand new for each astronaut, considering (1) The PLSS life support systems were NOT reused, because they weft left on the moon to save weight at liftoff from the moon, and (2) Each Apollo space was custom fitted and custom made for each astronaut. These days they are not custom made, and are reused by different astronauts.


But having said all that, I think the amount of time spent on EVAs is a major factor. To build and repair the ISS, astronauts have spent a little less that 1000 hours outside in spacesuits. The total amount of EVA time for all six Apollo mission put together was 81 hours.