Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

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.

edit on 6-1-2014 by ppk55 because: fix youtube links

So in your world if something goes wrong with a piece of equipment, that piece of equipment never worked and will never work in any other examples of that equipment?

They never played golf (hitting a couple of balls on one occasion is not 18 holes), and apart from the fact that 8 mph is hardly thrashing it, sitting down in the rover is probably the least likely to cause them any damage. Of all the hours and hours of EVA footage that exist, how many falls can you find? How many of those falls look like they could actually cause damage to either the helmet or the PLSS (the two most important pieces of equipment)?

reply to post by ppk55

In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

Why are musicians and sound engineers paying top dollar for vacuum tube amplifiers when digital equipment is the latest technology?

onebigmonkey
Of all the hours and hours of EVA footage that exist, how many falls can you find? How many of those falls look like they could actually cause damage to either the helmet or the PLSS (the two most important pieces of equipment)?

Why don't you have a look at my post, and count the falls for yourself. Lazy.

How was the alleged astronaut to know what he was falling on? He didn't. One wrong fall, one rock in the wrong place and he's dead.
They wouldn't have taken that chance.

The reason they are so cavalier about falling over is because there was no risk.

My original post attached so you can count the falls for yourself.

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.

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.

reply to post by ppk55

Why don't you have a look at my post, and count the falls for yourself. Lazy.

How was the alleged astronaut to know what he was falling on? He didn't. One wrong fall, one rock in the wrong place and he's dead.
They wouldn't have taken that chance.

The reason they are so cavalier about falling over is because there was no risk.

My original post attached so you can count the falls for yourself.

Speaking of lazy...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why do you seem incapable of learning?

DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

Why are musicians and sound engineers paying top dollar for vacuum tube amplifiers when digital equipment is the latest technology?

"They don't make em like they used to"

A truism lost on today's generation in more ways than I care to think about.

ppk55
So why did their spacesuit work so perfectly in 1969?

So you do not realise there is a difference between the environment on the moon and the environment on the ISS....

choos

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?

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.

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

Fig.1 Partial weight suspension system, or moonwalker, and jump platform. The subject is suspended by a harness attached to steel cables. Unloading is controlled by varying the spring tension with the electric winch....

web.mit.edu...

And an excerpt from a 1967 NASA document..

The effect of lunar gravity was achieved by using LMSC's one-sixth gravity
simulator, LUNARG (see Fig. 4). This unit, which supports five-sixths of
the subject's weight, consisted of nine negator spring motors attached to
a cable reeling system. The subject was attached to the aforementioned
cable via a harness. Fine balancing of plus or minus one pound accuracy
was achieved by placing a skin diver's weight belt around the subject's
waist.

www.google.ca... 457&ei=sZrQUtyuN4_5oATb-YHACg&usg=AFQjCNHcucnr4rwhRnMOv-z8JNbUbIniuQ


You go on as if the one and only jump possible with a harness/pulley system is the Mythbusters' jump.

How could they possibly simulate 1/6g with a harness/pulley system if it couldn't be adjusted???

How can you possibly think the Mythbusters jump cannot be adjusted in any way??

I've shown you clear evidence. You can accept it, or stay in denial.

reply to post by turbonium1


So... a study in which people jumped off of things proves what, exactly?

reply to post by turbonium1


you dont understand my point at all.. its not just one jump.. its ALL FALLING OBJECTS..

bags golf balls hammers feathers dust.. anything affected by lunar gravity will need to be suspended by your ropes..

so how did they make dust rise and fall according to lunar gravity?


p.s. those rigs you have linked to.. they only affect the WEIGHT.. perchance you dont know the difference between weight and mass?? and how gravity affects weight and mass??

oh and be sure to understand your own argument in future.. the Fig 1 diagram from the MIT paper its similar to the type of rig the mythbusters used.. and the NASA pdf, also similar to the one mythbusters used except more accurate to the pound.. they dont help you at all..

reply to post by turbonium1

First:
I fixed your google link to Lockheed's THE EFFECT OF LUNAR GRAVITY 001ON MAN'S PERFORMANCE OF BASIC MAINTENANCE TASKS paper published by Missiles and Space Company, A Group Division of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Sunnyvale, California in June 1, 1967.
www.google.ca

Second:
Please explain how this apparatus in the below picture was used and not seen in the Moon videos and films. Period technology would not allow this apparatus to be extracted (photoshopped) from the film or live video. I think your point is moot and you have just shot yourself in the foot.



reply to post by choos

perchance you dont know the difference between weight and mass?? and how gravity affects weight and mass?

I have asked this same question several times and he seems to be ignoring it.

onebigmonkey

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.

Probes were used for long-range images of Earth, at least any images beyond range of satellites.

And they weren't live images, as you claim.

onebigmonkey

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.

I'm asking for documents on specific technologies. Not transcripts.

Can you find any, or not?

onebigmonkey

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.

NASA images which confirm....NASA images. No go.

onebigmonkey

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.

A feedback loop that happens on Earth, so what?

onebigmonkey

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.

Now, you're just comparing NASA footage to NASA footage.

onebigmonkey

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.

They are experts in photography, and photographic analysis.

But you can keep on calling them stupid liars, if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't change the facts..

onebigmonkey

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.

Again, the harness/pulley system is variable, adjustable, and controlled. See my previous post for examples.

Gibborium

how this apparatus in the below picture was used and not seen in the Moon videos and films. Period technology would not allow this apparatus to be extracted (photoshopped) from the film or live video.

There is no evidence of live footage (video), first of all.

We certainly had the technology to remove wires, etc. from footage. I've already posted examples of it going back to 1950's sci-fi films.

Gibborium

perchance you dont know the difference between weight and mass?? and how gravity affects weight and mass?

I do know it. What of it?

DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

In 45 years technology should have advanced, not gone backwards.

Why are musicians and sound engineers paying top dollar for vacuum tube amplifiers when digital equipment is the latest technology?

Interesting analogy DJ. Happy New Year btw.

Speaking as a non-professional musician, the answer is partly because "it's personal". The musician/or producer has a certain sound "in his head" and guitarists (especially guitarists!) will buy untold amounts of gear to get their own "sound".

In a recording studio the sound engineer does what they are told! (just like at NASA, btw) and it's the artists/creators and producers who choose expensive vacuum tube amps over transistors, when the budgets allow.

When the budgets don't allow (my budget for gear is very, very low) I take whatever good deals I can get. Back in 1972 the budgets didn't allow for Werner von Braun to continue his dream. He had it all planned out, too. First, lunar bases. Then Mars.

So that means von Braun quit NASA in disgust of the Space Shuttle... he'd rather leave NASA then work on the space bus! A year later he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

PPK is arguing that we should have kept advancing onward toward the moon - establishing lunar bases. Werner von Braun's plans showed how it was possible for the 1980's. Our collective human history shows that no human or monkey has ever been outside of low earth orbit since December 1972. Who pulled the plug on the moon landing hoax projects? And who had a birthday yesterday?

DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

So... a study in which people jumped off of things proves what, exactly?

I suppose it proves you can't address....what it proves...

This study proves NASA was using harness/pulley systems to simulate 1/6g (lunar gravity) before the (supposed) moon landings.

Most relevant is that it proves their harness/pulley system was adjustable. They set the duration for their jumps. And it proves that we can match Young's jump - no doubt.

turbonium1


Probes were used for long-range images of Earth, at least any images beyond range of satellites.

Which probes? When were they launched? What were their imaging capabilities? You previously denied broadcasting from such distance was possible and yet now it is? Which is it?

And they weren't live images, as you claim.

Yes they were. Broadcast images show pictures of Earth that are verifiable by the position of the terminator and the weather patterns on them. Newpapers during the early apollo missions showed these images on the next day's front pages. Prove otherwise

I'm asking for documents on specific technologies. Not transcripts.

Can you find any, or not?

You've already been given a link to a specific document. There are plenty more, I suggest you use this 'internet' thing that everyone's talking about.

NASA images which confirm....NASA images. No go.

Prove them wrong.

A feedback loop that happens on Earth, so what?

As a result of audio being sent to the moon and back.

Now, you're just comparing NASA footage to NASA footage.

Prove it wrong

They are experts in photography, and photographic analysis.

AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If they were experts in these subject areas how come they are ridiculed and proven wrong by experts in photography and photographic analysis? Jack White didn't even know what photogrammetry was. I've done a pretty fair amount of photography and photographic analysis myself, so why don't you believe me? I've done a large amount of detailed analysis of Apollo imagery, and of the missions in general, which makes me an expert too. How come you call those morons experts and don't recognise the expertise of others - you have as much evidence of it?

But you can keep on calling them stupid liars, if it makes you feel better.

I will, not because it makes me feel better but because it's what they are. I'll add disingenuous fraudsters to that too.

It doesn't change the facts..

That's the one thing you've got right.

Again, the harness/pulley system is variable, adjustable, and controlled. See my previous post for examples.

And also apparently invisible and work on particles of soil. Where are they? Where these magical harnesses and all the operators for them?

SayonaraJupiter

PPK is arguing that we should have kept advancing onward toward the moon - establishing lunar bases. Werner von Braun's plans showed how it was possible for the 1980's. Our collective human history shows that no human or monkey has ever been outside of low earth orbit since December 1972. Who pulled the plug on the moon landing hoax projects? And who had a birthday yesterday?

And for once we can agree. Nixon was entirely responsible for the death of exploration outside Earth orbit, and his taking credit for Apollo is hypocrisy of the highest order. Unfortunately for you it doesn't prove we didn't go to the moon, just that he only had eyes on his own prize. We should indeed have kept on progressing the complexity of our missions to the moon and have permanent bases, but just because we didn't do that it doesn't prove that it is not possible or that the Apollo missions didn't happen (which I believe is more the premise of PPK's argument).

Oh, and sorry to break it to you - he didn't have a birthday yesterday. He''s dead.

onebigmonkey
Oh, and sorry to break it to you - he didn't have a birthday yesterday. He''s dead.

Of course he is dead but he can still have a birthday.

Oh, I'm sorry to have to break it to you. It's the Skylab missions in low earth orbit that were plagued with near-death disasters. Once Nixon had succeeded in bamboozling the world with his TV-Satellite Howard Hughes Apollo propaganda, space exploration suddenly returned to normality, didn't it? Suddenly, the hardware would not cooperate, astronauts were in danger in low earth orbit! But Apollo was so perfect in every way?

Everybody knows that the Apollo 13 TV drama was patterned after the 1969 film "Marooned" starring Gregory Peck, one of Nixon's favorite actors and directed by John Sturges one of Nixon's favorite Hollywood directors.

turbonium1

I do know it. What of it?

im sure you know what weight and is.. you just dont know the difference..

you dont realise that the rigs in both the documents you posted are similar rigs to what the mythbusters used.. by manipulating the length the spring is extended they can manipulate how much weight to subtract from the astronaut..

you see both rigs from the documents use springs to suspend some of the weight.. this has an effect of lowering the "apparent" weight of the object.. the only problem is, it is still under the influence of earths gravity..

this probably means nothing to you.. however as you are NOT aware, all things regardless of mass and regardless of size fall to earth at 9.81m/s^2 in a vacuum.. ie. a brick will fall from 1m in the exact same time a feather will fall 1m in a vacuum..

by suspending some of the weight its still going to fall at 9.81m/s^2.. all they have been doing is changing the apparent weight..

reply to post by turbonium1

I suppose it proves you can't address....what it proves...

This study proves NASA was using harness/pulley systems to simulate 1/6g (lunar gravity) before the (supposed) moon landings.

Most relevant is that it proves their harness/pulley system was adjustable. They set the duration for their jumps. And it proves that we can match Young's jump - no doubt.

simulate the feel of being on the moon and being on the moon is different.. the system that you have provided documents for is the same system that the mythbusters used.. and as you can see, it doesnt change the falling acceleration even though it has taken 5/6's of the weight off.. thats 83% of their weight taken off already.. if you take off 95% of the weight its still going to fall at the same acceleration..

you really need to understand this, all things fall at 9.81m/s^2 on earth in a vacuum theres no going around this fact.
youtu.be...

SayonaraJupiter

Why are musicians and sound engineers paying top dollar for vacuum tube amplifiers when digital equipment is the latest technology?

Interesting analogy DJ. Happy New Year btw.

Speaking as a non-professional musician, the answer is partly because "it's personal". The musician/or producer has a certain sound "in his head" and guitarists (especially guitarists!) will buy untold amounts of gear to get their own "sound".

In a recording studio the sound engineer does what they are told! (just like at NASA, btw) and it's the artists/creators and producers who choose expensive vacuum tube amps over transistors, when the budgets allow.

You're right.

I've played guitar for many years - and I still prefer the sound of vacuum tubes. Solid state/digital is getting better and better all the time, however. This is how technology applies to this case.

SayonaraJupiter

PPK is arguing that we should have kept advancing onward toward the moon - establishing lunar bases. Werner von Braun's plans showed how it was possible for the 1980's.

We would have advanced to moon bases. But we haven't even landed men on the moon yet.

SayonaraJupiter

Our collective human history shows that no human or monkey has ever been outside of low earth orbit since December 1972.

Or before '72.

Animals were sent into LEO many times - by both the US and the USSR - before any humans were sent there.

We didn't know if humans would be safe in LEO, back then. So we sent animals first, to find out. Both the US and the USSR did animal test missions in LEO, and both found it was safe, and they both started to send humans into LEO.

The next step is going beyond LEO. We knew even less about that environment than we knew about the LEO environment, just a few years back.

We did know one thing, however - we knew it was much more dangerous than LEO.

A less understood, much more hazardous environment...

This sounds like a perfectly safe environment for humans. Of course, NASA could confirm it first, with some animal test flights.

But they figured - hey, why bother! They KNOW humans will be safe there!! They don't need any animal tests - not even one! Just go with human missions, right off the bat!

Sure...

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

Crush the nation? A significant number of Americans believe the landings were a hoax. A growing number of Americans doubt the official 911 story and I believe well over 50% think Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy of men. Even with no concrete "proof" or admission of guilt, these fine people are doing just fine, and the rest dare I say are snoozing right along, so the idea of it "crushing the nation" seems a little over dramatic. The reason they don't come clean is same as it always has been, to save their asses.